A391-1 127-16,000-L180 TEXAS AERICUETIJRAL EXPERIMENT STATHIN B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, mmzos COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 373 DECEMBER, 1927 DIVISION OF FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS in cooperation with THE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Harvesting Grain with the Combined Harvester- Thresher in Northwest Texas _ TE ‘n 4 . ‘ ' w g Hyjmi ~ I (A “Emma/mlEH/IIW/ IIIMIW ; I mu ll, J if. AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President ' ‘ A STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION: _ *B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CONNER, M. S., Acting Director R. E. KARPER, B. S., Acting Vice-Director J. M. ScHAEDEL, Secretary M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk J. K. FRANcKLOw, Assistant Chief Clerk CHESTER HIGOS, Executive Assistant C. B. NERLETTE, Technical Assistant CHEMISTRY: G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Chemist S. E. ASRURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist WALDO H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist R. O. BROOKE, M. S., Assistant Chemist T. L. OGIER, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. G. EvANS, Assistant Chemist ATHAN J. STERGES, B. S_., Assistant Chemist G. S. CRENSHAW, A. B., Assistant Chemist JEANNE M. FUEGAS, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: , Chief H. NESS, M. S., Berry Breeder RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JONES, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations J. L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman; Breeding Investigations W. H. DAMERON, B. S., Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist R. FLETcHER, M. A., Entomologist W. L. OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist FRANK M. HULL, M. S., Entomologist J. C. GAINES, JR., M. S., Entomologist C. J. TODD, B. S., Entomologist . F. BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist . E. MOGREGOR, JR., Acting Chief Foulbrood Inspector . B. KENNERLY, Foulbrood Inspector ILLIS GRAHAM, Foulbrood Inspector RONOMY: °m> mm E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Chief A. B. CONNER. M. S., Agronomist; Grain Sorghum Research R. E. KARPER, B. S., Agronomist; Small Grain Research P. IVIANGELSDORF, Sc. D., Agronomist; in charge of Corn and Small Grain Investi- gations D. T. KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist; Cotton Breeding II. E. REA, B._S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations E. C. CUSHING, B. S., Assistant in Crops P. R. JOHNSON, B. S., Assistant in Soils No. l, Beeville, Bee County: B. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. STANSEL, M. S., Superintendent FRANK M. HULL, M. S., Entomologist No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: R. H. WYcHE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County: HENRY DUNLAvY, M. S., Superintendent B. F. DANA. M. S., Plant Pathologist II. E. BEA, B. S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations N0. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7. Spur, Dickens County: R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. JONES, Superintendent FRANK GAINES, Irrigationist and Forest Nurseryman No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: g}. W. ADRIANcE. M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture . W. BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of Entomology V. P. LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Marketing and Finance S E., Professor of Agricultural Engineering _ _ H. P. SMITH, M. S., Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering 4 **Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. _ _ ***In_ cooperation with U. S. ****In cooperation with t.he School of Agriculture. D. c0ATEs, A. TAS of December 1. 1927. *On leave. SUBISTATIONS VETERINARY SCIENCE: _ **M. FRANcIs, D. V. M., Chief_ _ H. ScHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian J. D. JONES, D. V. M., Veterinarian PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOG J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chie . L. J. PESSIN, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist a Laboratory Technician _ ‘ W. J. BAcH, M. S., Plant Pathologist J. PAUL LUSK, S. M., Plant Pathologist B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GARRARD, M. S., Chief . *B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Farm I Ranch Economist _ ._ G. L. CRAWFORD, M. S., Marketing Resear Specialist C. A. BONNEN, M. S., Farm Management Research Specialist _ _ V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing. Research Botan ***T. L. GASTON, JR., B. S., Assistant; Far Records and Accounts ~ ***J. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant; Ranch Reco i and Accounts ’ RURAL HOME RESEARCH: _ JESSIE WHITAcRE. Ph. D., Chief MAMIE GRIMES, M. S., Textile and Clothi Specialist - SOIL SURVEY: ***W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor T. C. REITOH, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY: H. NESS, M. S., Chief PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JAcKsoN, Chief SWINE HUSBANDRY: _ FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: , Chief POULTRY HUSBANDRY: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief ****AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: MAIN STATION FARM: G. T. MONESS, Superintendent APICULTURE (San Antonio): II. B. PARKS, B. S., Chief A. II. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief D. PEARcE, Secretary J. H. ROGERS, Feed Inspector W. H. WOOD, Feed Inspector K. L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector ‘ W. D. NORTHOUTT, JR., B. S., Feed Inspect SIDNEY D. REYNOLDS, JR., Feed Inspector 1 P. A. MOORE, Feed Inspector .» No. 10, Feeding and Breeding Station, near " College Station, Brazos County: = R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Animal Ilusba -i man in Charge of Farm T L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent . N0. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: . II. F. MORRIS, M. S., Superintendent ***No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: .I. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent _ ***J. C. STEPHENS, M. A., Junior Agronom_ No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: * E. W. THOMAS, B. S., Superintendent ———-—i———~—, Veterinarian i V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botan ***O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborating .4; Entomologist q - O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd . No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: , W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent 2 ——-—i—:-——, Entomologist W. J. BAcH, M. S., Plant Pathologist . No. l6, Iowa Park, Wichita County: E. J. WILSON, B. S., Superintendent = J. PAUL LUSK, S. M., Plant Pathologist Department ol" Agricultiiii i I2 SYNOPSIS An analysis of 72 records secured from wheat growers in northwest Texas who used combines in 1926 shows that the cost of harvesting is lowered, the amount of labor required is reduced, and the period of harvesting and threshing is short- ened by use of the combine. The cost of harvesting and threshing with the combine ranged from $1.42 to $2.06 an acre and from 5 to 13 cents a bushel. The number of hours of labor per acre required for harvesting and threshing where the wheat is bound or headed and threshed with the stationary thresher was 4.6 when the binder was used, 3.8 when the header was used, and only .75 when the combine was used. The time required for harvesting with combines ranged from 8 to 36 days, with an average of 18.5 days. The greater percentage of the crop was harvested during a period of 15 to 20 days. The combine is being used in a limited way for harvesting grain sorghums, the second most important crop of this sec- tion. With improvements of this crop making it more adaptable to machine harvesting and with increased experience of the operator and proper mechanical adjustment of the machine, it seems probable that this crop will be harvested more extensively with the combine. Harvesting with the combine is being extendedto other sections of the state and its use is likely to be increased, especially through the use of smaller machines. CONTENTS PA t‘ Object of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __ Source and Method of Securing Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Description of the Section Studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Can Be Accomplished with a Combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Size of Combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Types of Combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Days Used During Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rate of Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Acres Cut per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Hours Used per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acres Cut per Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 Acres Cut per Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11' Cost of Operating the Combine. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 f Fuel and Lubricants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Tractor Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11] Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Y Interest on Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ‘ Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . 13 ' Cost per Acre . . . , . . . . . ..'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 A Cost per Bushel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 L The Combine Compared with Other Methods of Harvesting" and i Threshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Delayed Starting with Combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 T Comparison of Man Hours. . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Harvesting Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 -» Threshing Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 ‘i Comparative Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 Special Equipment for the Combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Advantages of the Power Take-off Combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Cutter-Bar Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Self Feeders and Straw Spreaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Equipment for Threshing Miscellaneous Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Handling the Grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Grain Weigher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 The Importance of Custom Cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Harvesting Grain Sorghums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Specifications of Principal Makes of Combines Used in Texas . . . . . . 21 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 BULLETIN 373 DECEMBER, 1927 HARVESTING GRAIN WITH THE COMBINED HARVESTER- THRESHER IN NORTHWEST TEXAS H. P. SMITH* and ROBERT F. SPILMANl‘ The rapid increase in the number of combined harvester-threshers used in northwest Texas has been remarkable in its eifect on methods of harvesting Wheat. Combines were first introduced in this section in 1919, and 7 machines were sold the first year. The manufacturers’ sales reports to July, 1927, show that since the introduction in 1919, 2,682 combines have been sold in the state of Texas. The reason for the small number of combines being sold the first few years after they were introduced was that there was a general agricul- tural depression‘ from 1921 to 1923, the method of harvesting was new, there Was a lack of experienced operators, and the machine had not been perfected. While the principles of the combine have remained the same since it was first introduced, numerous refinements have been made which have increased its effectiveness. As a result, sales have g increased rapidly in the extensive wheat-growing section of northwest i Texas, and during the 1927 season a number of machines were sold in other sections of the state where small grains are grown less extensively. Information secured from the manufacturers shows that approximately 100 machines have been sold in the trade territory of Dallas and San Antonio. OBJECT OF STUDY - Many progressive wheat growers want to know Whether or not it would be profitable for them to discard the binder or header and pur- _ chase a combine. The object of this study was to find out what might f be accomplished with the different types and sizes of combines under actual farm conditions, their cost of operating, and the economic changes f‘; likely to be brought about by the introduction of the combine. SOURCE AND METHOD OF SECURING INFORMATION _. The Counties of Ochiltree and Hansford were selected as the best section for study because of the large number of combines used there in 1926. More combines were sold at Perryton, Texas, the county seat of Ochiltree County, than at any other place in Texas in 1926. Data were secured by personal interviews with 85 wheat growers who used combines to harvest their grain. These 85 wheat growers owned iand used 90 combines. On account of the incompleteness of some of *Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Engineering, School of "Agriculture, Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. TGraduate Assistant, Division of Farm and Ranch Economics, Texas Agri- ultural Experiment Station, and Agent Bureau of Agricultural Economics, i nited States Department of Agriculture, while assisting with the collection g» the data. 6 BULLETIN NO. 373, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the 85 schedules, several were discarded; consequently, the data appear- ing in this Bulletin pertain to only '72 of the combines studied. Special effort was made to obtain records on all the available makes, types, and sizes in order to make the study represent, as nearly as possible, the prevailing conditions of the section. DESCRIPTION OF THE SECTION STUDIED Thearea studied in Ochiltree and Hansford Counties is located on the High Plains of northwest Texas, which is a part of the Great Plains region of the United States. The counties are bounded 011 the north by the Oklahoma Panhandle, and are included in the north tier of counties of the section which is known as the Texas Panhandle. Figure 1.-—~Listing wheat land with a tractor and three-row lister._ This is one of the methods of handling the stubble land after harvesting. In general, the section consists of treeless plains, sometimes smooth but generally rolling, with some rather extensive areas of rough broken lands.* It lies within the sub-humid region of the Great Plains. Data presented in Table 1 show the average annual rainfall for 13 stations in northwest Texas, covering periods from 15 to 4Z0 years, to be 20.04 inches. I Hailstorms are frequent in the spring and summer months and often do considerable damage, but generally they are confined to small areas. The soil types of the area studied are the Amarillo and the Richfield clays, loams, and sandy loams, and are fairly typical of the greater part of the High Plains. *Reconnoissance Soil Survey of the Panhandle Region of Texas, U. S. D. A. Bureau of Soils by T. Carter, Jr., and G. N. Coffey, 1910. HARVESTING GRAIN WITH COMBINED HARVESTER-THRESHER UWQNEEDW 125.1% éofioom wGNQmF dfi51~ow~m< wO QGQEHQNQOQ 583m IGHQQ QWOMWAJOHQESQZVw ww 5 ww. EVA 8a Sam hmfi E; mma fix Q: i: ma. mm. m: . . . . . Iwcoxomfl . . . . . . 125w 3Q ma. S; 2: fiwm 3a Em 3m flwm Ea w? m? 2... mm . . . . . . . . 12mm ....a2>E2m @012 5. S. 2: 2a Nwm S; gm 5N $4 2. mm; 8. 2 . . . . ..3...A__E“.o ....=8>.Em wwam 3.. 2A 3a fiwm ma; .$.~ wmm gm a: mo; ma. 2w wH . . . . . . . . 12mm Iainfiwg 2:: 2.. ow. fiwm 3N t: 3.m wow o»; 2: mo; S. om. m: . . . . .%.9E:q ...%¢QQ=A o2: E. mm. ha; mm; mmd mmwm Qwm 2mm mqm EM Q. mm. 5 .. 82am .....fim5wQ 8.3 3. i; mma fia S.~ hm m 3N Sam S; 2.. mw. mm. 3 ........Ew8u ...=8.>Qw¢.~u fidm m? ma. hmfi 3a a; flaw Dim fix fix i. m». 2w fi .....mcoSwE.~< . . . . Z2530 fiem ma. mm; 3a max Nma hmd n; 2w». wmim i: ww. Q. om ........>o_coQ ...co©c@b£U ma. 3 ma: ha. gm wmwm 2.x mma i; 2.1m 3w 2 A E. fi mm. am . . . . ..§._E£u ....w8.€_Eu ww mm aw. mm; 2N firm wma Awfim 5.». 3m Ed. NNA NNA C». wfi . . . . IEaQEQE ....=2@2au mmimm mw. 2A fitfi 3a 5N :5 mmfi .5.“ NRA m? ww. 3. mm . . . . . . 155cm. ..c:EmE< $4M. £4 Q: SYN Ea @¢.m fiwm 3a S; fiwm fin; 8; Q: mm ...e._¢:@v1a.~w . ....>§£< 125:4 dufl .>oZ A06 Qhwm $.54 E3. 05;. hag 2.5a» n52 huh c2. QQQM covm Bram Haox coon 95a $103! of wwhooufl A255 kficsoU coifim Em?» Mo QQQEUQ 23 how $505 E coflwgaawowkm wwsccm wcw 3522b 12:32 .5.“ Emu? Q5 BQQEZ fwmxow. we coiouw chowwgifiho: of E wcofimaw m; how floimfifimowufl 132:2». mam 35:05 wwflioZlA oEaP 8 BULLETIN NO. 373, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION WHAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH A COMBINE Size 0f (Jombine- One of the most important factors influencing the accomplishments of a combine is its size. The size of a combine is deter- mined by the width of the swath it will cut. The size of the machines used in northwest Texas ranged from 8 feet to 20 feet. The most common sizes of combines ranged from 12 to 16 feet. Types 0f Cflmbilles- Two types of combines were being used in this section. They were the tractor-drawn auxiliary engine type and the power take-off type. The auxiliary engine combines are those ‘that have an engine installed on the machine to operate both the harvesting and- threshing mechanism, the whole being drawn with a tractor. Power take-off combines are those that receive their power from the tractor which pulls the machine. . ‘There were no ground-driven types found in the section studied. Such machines have all the combine mechanism, driven by power received from a large wheel in contact with the ground. ~ Days Used During Seasoll- During the season of 1926, the majority of combines of this section were operated about the same number of days. Table 2 shows that the smallest number of days of harvesting by any one outfit on which records were taken was 8 days; the largest number 36; and the average 18.5 days. Table 2.—Acres cut per hour and per foot of width with machines of different types and sizes - Cut Per Size of Yield Rate of Length Cut Per Cut Per Hour Per Type of Machine Farms Per Travel of Day Day Hour Foot of Machine Acre Width Miles, Feet Number Bushels Hour Hours Acres Acre Acres 12 5 25.2 2.8 11.0 29.9 2.7 .225 T ractor- pulled 15 10 29.0 2.8 10.0 29.1 ' 2.8 .187 auxiliary engine 16 19 28.6 2.6 10.4 37.4 3.6 .225 20 1 34.0 2.2 12.0 53.0 4.4 .220 Power 8 6 27.7 2.3 11.0 15.6 1.4 .175 take-off machines 10 4 34.0 2.8 10.6 29.0 2.7 .270 Though all combines were operated about the same number of days, those of a given size did not harvest the same number of acres. Varia- tion in the number of acres harvested was considerably wider than the number of days. The machines which were kept going most constantly and which harvested grain under more nearly ideal conditions harvested the largest acreage. When one field was finished there were plenty of other fields waiting for the first machine that could pull into the field. A few farmers who grew a larger acreage of wheat than is normally harvested with one combine preferred to harvest all of their own grain, even though it took longer and though there was considerable risk from HARVESTING GRAIN WITH COMBINED HARVESTER-THRESHER 9 Weathering, because the cash expenditure was less and because the profits were greater, in their opinion, than if they had hired a part of the harvesting done. Rate 0f Travel- Table 2 shows that the rate of travel for all sizes of combines did not vary more than .6 of a mile per hour. The slowest machine traveled 2.2 miles per hour and was the largest of the auxiliary engine types. The next slowest was the smallest of the power-take-ofi types. The average rate of travel for all machines was 2.58 miles per hour. The rate of travel was practically the same for both low and high yields. If the combines showed signs of being overloaded in heavy grain, the operator did not slow down, but drew out and reduced the. width of the swath being cut. Figure 2.-—An outfit similar to the above is capable of harvesting 35 acres per day. Afles C1111 Per Day- Many farmers think of the capacity of a machine as the amount of work it can do during a day’s time. Table 2 shows the average number of acres that were harvested with the various sizes and types of machines. The small S-foot power take-off combine har- vested 15.6 acres in 11 hours, while the 20-foot auxiliary engine type harvested 53 acres in 12 hours. The number of hours of cutting during the day varies somewhat from season to season, and the number ofacres per foot of width is affected somewhat by the yield and the condition of the grain; but on the average, one should expect to accomplish as much as the table indicates for the various sizes of machines. Hours Used P61‘ DaY- The number of hours combines were used for day as shown in Table 2. On the whole, all machines were operated about the optimum number of hours during the day. This number of hours, however, is probably greater in this section than in some others, 10 BULLETIN NO. 373, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION especially the more humid sections of the winter wheat region. Most operators delayed starting in the morning for a short While on account of the grain being somewhat damp. However, some operators Were of the opinion that it would be practicable to harvest 24 hours during the day for a part of the season as the humidity would not be high enough to affect the functioning of the combine to any appreciableextent. Table 3.—Opinion of owners as to the minimumand maximum acreages that should be handled with the different size combines. Minimum Acreage Maximum Acreage Width Number Type of Machine of Cut of Farms Farms l Acres Farms Reporting Reporting Acres 8 6 6 135.0 6 266.7 Power take-off 1O 4 4 » 175.0 4 462.5 12 11 10 320.0 10 580.0 15 2o ' 2o 295 .0 2o 662 .0 Tractor pulled auxiliary engine 16 28 28 307 .0 28 734.0 2o 3 p 3 356.0 s 716.0 M M M Figure 3.——-A twenty-foot combine in operation. A machine of this size will harvest and thresh 50_acres per day and is well adapted to large-scale wheat farming as found 1n the Texas High Plains Section. - Acres Cut Per HOHr- The amount of work that can be accomplished in a day depends directly upon what can be done in an hour. ‘ Of course, the acreage out per hour varies with the size and type of the machine. The acres cut per hour by the power take-off machinesshowed an average of 1.4 for the 8-foot machines and 2.7 for the 10-foot machines. Combines equipped with an auxiliary engine cut 2.7 acres per hour, HARVE_STING GRAIN WITH COMBINED HARVESTER-THRESHER 11 while the 15-, 16-, and 20-foot machines averaged 2.8, 3.6, and 4.4 acres per hour, respectivrelyl’. The difference in the rate of cutting Was due to the difference in size of the machine. Acres Cut Per SQaSOII- The number of acres harvested per season is affected by the size and type of combine, age of machine, experience and initiative of the operator, and acreage available for harvesting. Table 5 shows that the 8-foot power take-ofi combine harvested an average of 268 acres for the season, while the 20-foot auxiliary engine combine harvested an average of 853 acres. The average for all types and sizes was 586.6 acres. Table 3 shows the opinions of the owners interviewed as to the minimum and maximum acreages that should be handled with the different sizes and types of combines. The figures given as opinions corresponded closely to the actual accomplishments. COST OF OPERATING A COMBINE The cost of operating a combine is determined by a number of factors and, therefore, cannot be estimated accurately for any one farm without detailed records covering all of the factors involved. Accordingly, the average utilization and most prevailing costs have been used in prepar- ing Table 4, which isconsidered a good estimate of the cost of harvest- ing and threshing with a combine. The items used in determining the cost of operating the Various sizes and types of machines are given in Table 5. F1181 and Lllbricarlts- The cost of operating a combine is greatly in- fiuenced by the price paid for fuel, lubricating oils, and greases. Gaso- line was charged at 20 cents, kerosene at 16 cents, and lubricating oils at 80 cents per gallon. These were the prices most commonly reported by operators of combines. I Tractflr POWQIK" In calculating the cost of tractor power it was as- sumed that the average tractor would be used 700 hours during the year, and that $21.00* per drawbar horsepower would be the annual fixed cost of the tractor. The charge for harvesting was determined by dividing the total fixed cost for the year by the fraction of 180 over 700. As nearly as could be calculated, the average number of hours, for each combine, of actual harvesting during the year was 180. The sizes of the tractors used were: a 10drawbar horsepower for the 8-foot, a 20 horsepower for the 20-foot, and a 15 horsepower for all other combines. LHDOF- From Table 4 it is seen that labor is the largest single item of cost in operating the average combine. The size of the crew used to operate a combine varied slightly with the type and size of the outfit. The small S-foot machine of the power take-off type required only one man to operate both the tractor and the combine. The 10-foot power take-off and the 12-foot auxiliary=engine types required one man on each *Bul1etin 415, University' of California. “The Tractor 011 California Farms.” 12 BULLETIN NO. 373, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 8888 888.8 8888 8888. 8 8888. 8888. 8 8888 8888. 8 8888 8888.8 8888. 8888. 8 .. . . . . . . . . . .8888 888 A8858 .808 888cc 88.888888808888788 8888. 8888. 8 8888. 8888. 8 8888. 8888.8 8888. 8888. 8 8888. 888.8 8888. 8888.8 .8888 .68 8888 88888882888. 8888 8888 8888 8888. 8888 8888. 8888. 8888 8888 8888 8888 8888. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8285 8888. 88.88 8888. 8888. 8888. 8888. 8888. 8888 8888. 8888 8888. 8888. . . . . . . . . . .888 8.888 88888.88 888. 8888 8888. 8888 8888. 888 8 8888. 8888. 8888. 888 888. 8888 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8._888m 888. 8888. 8888. 8888 888. 8888 888. 8888. 888. 8888 888. 8888 . . .888 s8 888888 88 88818888 8888. 8888 8888. 888 8888. 8888 8888. 8888 8888M 888 8888. 8888 . . . . . :23 $8 8888888888888 8888. 8888. 8888. 8.888. 8888. 8888. 8888 8888. 8888 8888. 8888. 8888. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8585 -808 80.8 888883.53 888:8 828m 35m MO@ QMOAN pflfim 5m MON» UMO< MOQ 3m MQQ OQU/‘w MON» 88m MOM,» 0.80888 h0@ 5m uOQ QMO< QOQ 5m MQQ UMO< 88m 88 8 88 88 88 88 8001A E 8880 8o 8333 .8888E88.8oo 8888 888888.588 8888B 888883 888888882888 .80 8888885 .688 88888 8.888 .8888 88oU||48 88888.8. HARVESTING GRAIN WITH COMBINED HARVESTER-THRESHER 13 combine and the tractor. A helper was used 0n a small number of the 15-, 16-, and 20-foot machines. Five dollars a day was the most com- mon wage reported for both combine operators and tractor drivers; therefore, this amount plus $1.35 a day for board was used in determin- ing the cost of labor per acre. Table 5.-—Items of cost in harvesting wheat with a combine. Fuel and Lubricating Oil Other Items of Cost A cres Gallons Per Acre _ _ Crew Har- Type of Size of Initial _ He- vested Machine Machine Gasoline Kerosene _ Cost of Life of quired An- for r Lubricat- Machine Machine to nually Combin- Tractor ing Oil (dollars) (years) Operate ing Machine Power 8 . . . . . . . . . . 1.36 .06 1,002.00 7 1.0 268 take-off 10 . . . . . . . . .. 1.29 .05 1,246.00 8 2.0 474 12 .52 1.95 .09 2,027.00 8 2.0 667 Tractor- pulled 15 .85 1.96 .09 2,077.00 6 2.4 520 auxiliary engines 16 .62 .81 .06 2,252.00 6 2 .3 738 20 .58 .72 .04 2,919.00 6 2.6 853 Interest 0n Investment An interest charge based on one-half the original investment at eight per cent is taken to represent the average interest charge for the entire life of the machine, the average of which was 8 years. The average acreage harvested annually is used in calculating the cost per acre, because the acreage harvested during the 1926 season was exceptionally large. In most cases, combines harvested a greater acreage than the maximum which operators believed should be har- vested by one combine, as shown in Table 3. ReDairS- Repair charges are based on the average charges for the life of the machines. Since it was not known what the repair costs for some of the newer types of machines will be for the complete life of the combine, the average cost per sickle-bar foot of machines on which com- plete records are available is used. Because of improvements in con- struction, the newer types of machines will likely show a lower repair cost than the older ones, but none of the costs for repairs exceed 15 cents an acre and are, therefore, considered to be conservative. COSt Per Aere- The average cost per acre for the six difierent sizes of combines used in making Table 4 is $1.62. It is interesting to note that the cost per acre does not vary greatly for the different sizes of machines. C0811 Per Bllshel- Table 2 shows the average yield per acre for the season of 1926 to be 28.8 bushels. By dividing $1.62, the average cost per acre, by 28.8, the average yield in bushels per acre, the cost per bushel is determined for the season of 1926, which was 8.056. However, the yield per acre for the average year is only 15 bushels, as determined 14 BULLETIN NO. 373, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION from census reports for 1909, 1919, and 1924. The cost per bushel for the average year can be approximated by dividing $1.62, the cost per acre, by 15, which gives $108, Consequently, the cost per bushel varies with the yield per acre, as shown in Table 6. As the yield decreases, the cost per bushel increases. However, the cost will not likely be the same on any two farms, since it will vary from year t0 year as the different items of cost vary. Table 6.—Approximate cost of harvesting wheat with diflerent yields per acre.* Cost Per i Cost Per Yield Per Acre Bushel Yield Per Acre Bushel 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 ‘3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 324 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . O95 '7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . O85 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 077 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 070 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O64 *Calcul_ati0r_1s based on the cost of $1.62 per acre, which was the average for the six different size combines included 1n the survey. THE COMBINE COMPARED WITH OTHER METHODS OF HARVESTING AND THRESHING When wheat is harvested with a combine, the grain should be suffi- ciently mature and dry to stand storage. This is necessary because im- mature grain has a high percentage of moisture and will heat when stored. Delayed Starting With Cflmbille- The number of days harvesting was delayed after a binder could have been started was reported variously ‘from 2 to 14, but the majority of farmers reported from 4 to 7 days. The number of days’ delay after the header could have been started ranged from 2 to '7 days, but the majority of farmers reported only 3 to 4 days. The principal disadvantage of depending on the combine for all harvesting is the risk of loss because of hail, rain, or windstorms during the 4 to '7 days of waiting for the wheat to ripen enough to use the combine after the binder or header could have been started. COIIIPaIiSOH 0f Man HOIIIS- It has been estimated from previous studies made on the cost of harvesting and threshing and also from this study that the total labor for harvesting and threshing would be reduced from approximately 4.6 man hours for cutting with a binder and threshing with a stationary thresher, and 3.8 man hours for harvesting with a header and threshing with a stationary thresher, to about .75 man hours per acre where the work is done with a combine.* *Preliminary' Report of the United States Department of Agriculture on “Harvesting Grain with a Combined Harvester-Thresher i11 the Great Plains Region, 1926.” HARVESTING GRAIN WITH COMBINED HARVESTER-THRESHER 15 Harvesting LOSSQS- Harvesting and threshing losses Were not studied in Texas, but they were studied in other states in cooperation with this study; so the following is quoted from the Preliminary Report of the United States Department of Agriculture on “Harvesting Grain with a Combined Harvester-Thresher in the Great Plains Region, 1926”: “Losses of grain resulting from the different methods of harvesting were determined in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Montana, by actual counts of the number of heads left on the ground in 259 fields cut by combines, 59 fields cut with the header, and 34 fields cut with binders. The yield per acre in. fields cut with combines was determined from samples taken previous to harvesting. The losses on headed and bound fields were calculated on the basis of yields obtained from the combine fields. Figure Air-Harvesting and threshing in one operation causes congestion of local point storage and marketingfacilities. At Perryton more than 200,000 bushels of wheat were piled » on the ground at one time during the season of 1926. “Forty-one of the 190 fields of winter wheat cut with the combine had losses of less than 1 per cent, 106 less than 2 per cent, and 137 less than 3 per cent. Losses greater than 3 per cent occurred with an uneven or partly lodged crop, on rough land, with poor machines, through care- less operation, or in very windy weather. The average loss from har- vesting winter wheat with combines was 2.6 per cent. Fields cut with headers showed an average loss of 3.3 per cent, while fields cut with binders shows an average loss of 6.1 per cent. These per cent losses are based on a yield of 20.4 bushels per acre. The loss per acre was 32 pounds after the combine, 40 pounds after the header, and '74 pounds after the binder. Heads cut off and dropped on the ground were the greatest source of loss in combining and heading. Additional losses in 16 BULLETIN NO. 373, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION heading occurred in loading the header barge and hauling to the stack. The losses in binding include the cutting loss, the loss between the canvasses, losses from the binding platform, bundle carrier, heads dropped in shocking and hauling, and heads left in shock bottoms. Losses around the stacks and incident to threshing are not included.” Threshing LOSSQS- “Blanket tests” of 33 combines and nine separators were made to determine which type of machine was the most efficient. The loss measured includes only the threshed grain which was blown or carried through with the straw. Thirteen of the 33 combines were carrying over less than 1 per cent of the grain threshed and 21 less than 2 per cent. All losses of over 2 per cent probably were due to poor adjustment and operation. COStS- In order to contrast combined harvesting and threshing with that of harvesting with the binder and header and threshing with the stationary thresher, Table 7 has been prepared from available data. Since practices of binding, heading, and threshing with the stationary thresher are fairly stable and since the data used in this table were collected from a large number of farms over a wide area, they are con- sidered to be applicable to conditions in northwest Texas. Table 7.—Calculated cost of harvesting and threshing Wheat when binder and header are used. Cost Per Acre and Per Bushel Hours Per Acre (Dollars) Cost When Wheat is Headed and Threshed Threshing and Man Horse Man Horse Twine Heading and stacking . . . . . . . . . . . . '. 2 s 4 s 1.26 e9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Threshing from the stack . . . . . . . . . . 1 .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.61 . . . . . . . . Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.3 4.3 1.94 .69 1.61 . . . . . . .. Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.55 Cost per bushel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A .24 Cost When Wheat is Bound and Threshed. Binding wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 v 2.8 .32 .45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shocking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 . . . . . . . . .40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hauling to the thresher............ 1.6 3.2 .72 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Threshingfrom wagons............ 1.4 . . . . . . .. .63 . . . . . . .. 1.61 . . . . . . .. Twine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . .21 . . . . . . . . Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.6 6.0 2.07 .96 1.82 . . . . . . .. Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.85 Cost per bushel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ .33 The requirements per acre of man and horse labor used in these calculations are taken from United States Department of Agriculture Bulletin 1198. The data were collected in 1920 from 467 winter belt farms in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. In calculating the per acre and per bushel cost, man labor was figured at 45 cents an hour, horse work at 16 cents an hour, and twine at 17 cents a pound. HARVESTING GRAIN WITH COMBINED HARVESTER-THRESHER 17 The average yield per acre was 14.6 bushels. Threshing costs Were ifigured at 11 cents a bushel for dependent threshing. The farmer i furnished all the crew except the engineer and separator man, and the acost of all the additional labor is included in the above calculations. In this case the fuel cost is included in the cost of threshing at 11 cents bushel. SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE COMBINE Alloperators should study the mechanical features of the combine because of their influence on the operation of the machine. Failure to onsider the proper type, the size, the attachments, and the adjustments n the combine may affect the accomplishments of the machine to such extent that the efliciency Will be materially reduced. A study of the .. 'gure 5.——The combine has brought about the development of a new plow known gener- the one-way disc plow. It is capable of cutting a strip 1O feet wide to a maximum y, of 7 inches. 20 to 3O acres can be plowed in a day with an outfit of this kind. 18 BULLETIN NO. 373, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION tables giving the number of the different types and sizes of machines used in this section shows that the most popular machine in 1926 was the auxiliary engine type. Advantages of the Power Take-off Combine. The larger Size meehjne is most commonly used on the larger farms. In some sections the smaller power take-off machines are attracting considerable interest of the smaller farmers, and to a less extent the larger farmer, because of their general satisfactory service and economy in labor, fuel, and low v initial cost. By taking the power direct from the tractor the expense A of owning and keeping up an auxiliary engine the year round to be used T fifteen to twenty days during the year is avoided. # Cutter-Bar EXteIISiOII- The width of the cutter-bar may be varied on most machines by using or removing the extension cut. The use of the" extension in harvesting of wheat with low yields, thereby increasing the number of acres which can be harvested per day and lowering the cost of harvesting low-yielding wheat, is especially advantageous. ‘i Self F eederS and Straw Spreaders- Self feeders and straw spreaders may be used in order to equip the combine better for stationary work,‘ but they have been used to a very limited extent in this section. The; m.ore common uses of the combine as a stationary thresher are to threshi small fields of wheat and other small grains, or to thresh shock rows of wheat which result from opening up a field preparatory to combining. Special bundle and windrow pick-up feeders have been developed which k allow the combine to be used to thresh shock rows and windrowed grain i without further handling. This also eliminates the necessity of moving i the straw, since it is spread on the ground as the machine moves along. Equipment for Threshing Miscellaneous Crops. Threshing Small quanti- ties of milo heads and cleaning various kinds of seed for planting pur- ~ poses are other uses of the combine. A few farmers reported using the combine for threshing grain sorghums which had been cut with a ; header. Grain sorghums which are harvested with the header are usually stacked in small ricks in order that they may cure out properly. t‘ The combine may be used to good advantage in threshing these ricks, as it can easily be moved from one rick to the next. f The combine also has been used to thresh the heads from bundles ofi grain sorghum by laying the bundles across the cutter bar, which hasf been twisted to an upright position. The heads are cut off and carried, ~». ~A-A by the platform canvas to the cylinder. The labor of threshing bundles; in this way is less, since the combine may be moved along the shock row; thus eliminating one or more handlings of the bundles. Li Many farmers reported using their combines for harvesting oats, rye, and barley in addition to grain sorghums. Frequently, the machines,‘ were changed from one crop to another without making any adjust- ments. This practice could possibly be tolerated without serious losses; when changing from wheat to oats, rye, or barley, but the best results, cannot be obtained with grain sorghums. Most of the machines were HARVESTING GRAIN WITH COMBINED HARVESTER-THRESHER 19 equipped with a straw spreader to spread the straw uniformly over the land rather than t0 concentrate it in a narrow windrow. When the straw is not spread, considerable difficulty is often experienced by the failure of the tillage tools to handle it. This is especially true when there is a large amount of straw and stubble on the field. Handling the Graill- All the grain in this region was handled in bulk, being run directly into a ‘wagon or grain tank. Only the new machines were equipped with grain tanks; many of the older ones used wagons. When the grain is hauled direct to market or to the farm granary equipped with a wagon-dumping device, there is a distinct advantage in using the grain tank, asall labor of scooping is eliminated. The capacity of the grain tank ranged from 30 to 6O bushels. Grain Weighers- Duringi1927 a successful specially designed grain weigher for combines was placed on the market. THE IMPORTANCE OF CUSTOM CUTTING Many owners of combines after harvesting all their own grain would harvest for their neighbors, charging them a fee for the service. This practice of harvesting for pay is termed custom cutting. The im- portance of custom cutting cannot be overestimated, since it enables the owner of a combine to lower the cost of harvesting his own grain by earning enough to partially take care of the original investment, and Y since it reduces the fixed cost of owning a combine. It also enables the . small farmer whose acreage would not justify owning a combine to buy an outfit, not only to harvest his own grain but also to harvest his ‘f neighbors’. a t g The extent to which custom cutting was practiced during the season Y of 1926 was rather uniform for owners of all types and sizes of com- ‘ bines. From one-third to one-half of all owners of combines inter- viewed did custom cutting. The number of acres harvested in this way was about one-third to one-half the entire acreage ‘harvested. On the whole, custom cutting increased the acreage and the days of harvesting j for the operator who followed this practice. I One disadvantage of custom cutting is that those who depend upon hiring their grain harvested have to Wait longer than those who own Ercombines. This involves considerable risks of damage from weather and shattering if the grain becomes overripe before it can be harvested. HARVESTING GRAIN SORGHUMS WITH THE COMBINE . Though this study is limited largely to the harvesting of wheat, some nformation was secured on harvesting grain sorghums and is included because of their importance. The extent to which grain sorghums are own in this section, the expense of handling a large bulk of grain per 201T}, and the absence of any satisfactory mechanical means of harvest- such grain cause the plains farmer to experiment with the combine. here are several characteristics of the grain sorghums that make it 2O BULLETIN NO. 373, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION .5.“ wobsvug .253 o5 303x! zzmiogmfi s05? wan doh. $5 mcSmQZmA SZQQEQoQ E wfiwmouozm mm ABA? Es: ma; acmfim wEpmpf/ums Mo ©0505 411w opiwmwm HARVESTING GRAIN WITH COMBINED HARVESTER-THRESHER 21 difficult to harvest them with the combine. Chief among these are the lack of uniformity in ripening and the tendency of the stalk t0 lodge after frost. It is necessary to let the grain stand in the field until after frost in order to dry sufficiently for storage. Even then the grain sometimes heats in the bin because of excess moisture. The possibilities of heating while in storage are further increased by the cracking of the grain while threshing. From experience it seems that harvesting grain sorghums with the combine is much more difiicult than harvesting small grains. To adjust the machine properly for harvesting grain sorghums, it is necessary to change several sprockets in order to slow down the speed of the moving parts. The necessary sprockets are not always available at the local dealers, and the operators frequently neglect to inform them- selves properly as to the adjustments needed and how to make them. During the fall of 1926 grain sorghums were harvested with varying results in northern Oklahoma and southern Kansas. Much of the grain went to market direct from the combine, but some of it was piledout on the ground in order to dry for a few days before marketing .or storing. A part of it was stored in ordinary bins on the farm, and the moisture content and other factors affecting storage are now being studied. . SPECIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL MAKES OF COMBINES USED IN TEXAS In order to enable those interested in comparing the various makes of combines, Table 8 is given showing the specifications of the principal makes most used in Texas. From a study of this table, the various parts of combines can be compared and the one selected that comes nearest meeting the needs of the individual. The prospective purchaser can also study the make-up of all combines before buying. Of course, there will be minor changes from time to time, but the general make-up of the machines will remain the same. .2502 0.0.0 222.52. .0020 00522002 205522 20mm .003 00H 22252.. 60002.20 203072 250502552 50002.. ~ . - - ¢ - - - . . - - - - - - . - . - - - -.~ -.-~..-¢o.o.|-» on ...- .... u 000000 ¢WW WWW-ncoococbo utfltoouin iuv@-§>>iiunu--uu.WQQ;QQFA%W@W} :50 .0 :0 .0 :0 .0 :0 .HH :0 52. .22 :0 .0 .. . . :0 .HH :0 .0 . . . .. 2:3 .0H 12.0. . :0 .HH :0 .HH . 50 0 22 202 05 220m :0 EH :2. 0H :0\1. AH :0XH .2 =22 .0. :2. :HH . . . . .. :0 .0 :0. RH ...... .. :0 5H :H. .0 :0 :0 .2200 5 0.2.2 . . .0 0.5 . 2 :0 R0 :HH 0H :HH 0H . . . . .. :0 .00 . . . . . . . .. :2. .HH ........ . . . . .. . .. :0 R0 :0 .00 .. . . . . . .. :0 .220 :0 0H :0 .20 :0 .00 ... . . 22.2.0250 002.2% :2. .00 :0 0H :0 0H. . . . . . . . . . . . . :50» .20 :0 2mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2w 2mm 2O QN 2b .00 2w 20m 2w 222m 2O 2mN . . . . . . :0 H22 Q 522m 52m 52m . . . . . . . .2205 ...020m . . . . . . . . . 52m 522m 50252.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0005 502cm 52m 5.2m 00520002 200.2? .502..00m 5.2m 522m 52m . . . . . . . 2022022 .0205 . . . . . . . . . £55 £005 5002522. 050 0022022 .2205 502cm 5.2m 522m . . . . . . . 005.5002 2002B 5.022 52m 522m 52m . . . . . .5020,m 002cm . . . . . . . . 22.2mm 220>m 5002522. 252m 252m 202cm 502cm 53252.2. 22.2mm . . . . . . . 005.2002 2002B 253m .0505 5.2005 5.0.2.5 . . . . . 52m 20m .0025 .2005 222mm 2.02200 52m 52m . . . . . . . . . .0005 £025 $005 . . . . . . . . . . . 00500022 .50200m .0050 .0200... .2500 . . . . . =00 =5 .055 0.05 5.2.5 .5200 .50 550 . . . . . . . .. .225 2.55 .025 ..... . . . . . . . . . 00.0.00... £0 220m 220m 20m . . . . . 20m 2.0m .005 B02 220mm. s55 550 050 050 20m 2.0m .255 5&5 . .. .. . . . . . 005.5000. 202052.20 =0 =0 =0 .... ... ... =0 =0 ... Em...m pmmm =0 =0 ... ... U. 0.2.52 .. ... .... ... :00 :00 :00 :25... :00 :00 050Z. . :02. :02. :00 . . . :00 :00 :02. :00 . 20.20.05 x2 2 0 m :0H .000. :0H :22 :0H :0H . . . . . . :0H =5 :0H =25 :0 10H :2.H :0H :0H :0H .. 5222023 . . .0 00 B 50 ...... 5M0. =m2 .50 =$ =00 . . 00.22. . ...... =00 =M0 200M200 .2000 =20 . =20 Q0 .20 . 2wwmfihm _ .2 . 5 0 H 0 0 0 0 2...: :0 2w . . . . . . . . . :0H :0H . . . . . :0H 20H 22.2 2w 2w 2XW 2N." 2cm . . . . :20 2225 2A2?“ . . . . . . . . . :00 2&0 . . :20 2W0.“ 222N220.“ 2WN 2WN pwlmmvmnvrmm . . . . . . . . . :2H.0 22am“ . @2005? 25022 . . . . . . . . . H . - .00 00-5.5. .00 ..... . . . .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0.20 05.20 2.2.5 0000...... .00 .00 . . . . . H H H H H .............20.... 0.0.5 32 80H S2 002 002 35 03H 2.2 505.02.. $5 .002: 255 2W0 ... Hmmwh =0\5.W~\.0 5M5... 5W... 5W... Human 050M020 0W. 2W... 2.3%.. =2 0W5..." .0020. ......... 20% 2. 20% 0 .......w.....2...2......mw.0w¢0.mmm..mm 0000 00200.22. 020002503 Em... 250m 0025050m 00250.50m 50250.2 00250.50m 00250.50m 020002505 20.2500 025m 5B0 0020.002. 520500023 50500023 . . . . . . . . . . . . Q0205 20 00202.22 :5 :0 00 2m 22m . . . . . . . . . :00 2mm 2cm .0200 2~\H©N 2mm 22¢ 2mm :00 :5 :00 :00 . . . . .0>oH.0 w5250020 .20 H22w50Q =0 a. =0 0... =0 a. ... . . . . .. =0. =0. =8 =3 =0... =00 =2. =2. . =5. =50” =5 =00 . . . . . . . .25.. s02. 0.00.5 =05 =05 =0: . . . . . . . :HOH :2.0H :03 :H.HH :2.HH :00H :03 . . . . . . :00H :00 :03 2.0222 . . .000.2.50 002020500 2205012 0Z 2.0502256 00W 00W 00W 2.0502250 205022220 205022220 00W 00W 00W 00W ........500.500 200B b02254 00W 00W 00W 00W 00W 0Z 00W 00W 00W 00W 00W 0Z 0Z 00W 00W ...................50500200m \\$¢ \\@$ 2mm \\%@ \\x%$ \\$\mN¢ 222w 20¢ \\¢% 2Nw 2mm 2mm 2mm 2km \\@M \\.%% - - - - . .M-NQ-H.HU@MQBP :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :0H :00 :00 :00 :00 .000 :00 :20 :00 :00 . . . . . . . ......0H.52.8 00 5222023 :00 :00 :00 0502 :00 :00 0502 :02. :02. :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :02. :02. . . . . . ... 0.0.2500 00 2222.23 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :02. :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :02. :02. . . . . . .0320.» 200.205 200.05 s\¢ \\$ 2w \\¢ \\¢ \\$ 2w \\¢ \\¢ 2w \\¢ s\¢ 2w 2* \\M \\$ . . . 2 . 2 2.200302 .075 .0 :0 EH .00 .0H|0H :0 .0 :00 EH EH .0705 20H .072 20H :00-fig .0705 . . . . . 250 00 22202.5 02220.5 02220.5 02.5.0.5 02220.5 0.00.5 02220.5 02020.5 02228.2 02020.5 02020.5 02020.5 0250.5 02.50.22 02020.5 02020.5 02220.5 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0552. 000D 5B020m .22055m-0050>0< 2050020 2020000 .H>H wH. 02.5.2_0m-.H000.02>2 052000m 220m . .205 0.5 .5522 -02025.8O0§ H252 ...0000.H. 0H2 H.005 00522500 2O 0502200222005m|k0 9» . Saw a was.“ om gawk/hm: E3 w Q 25 Ho ocfiomfi woowéfi 4 85.5 38o“? E .8395 o5 98A? wGQEQwQVGm 12E: v5 woos?! 0:380“. toéxfi Qua/omit“. 953m 23 HARVESTING GRAIN WITH COMBINED HARVESTER-THRESHER 24 BULLETIN NO. 373, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SUMMARY The number of combines used in northwest Texas has increased from '7 in 1919 to 2,682 in 1927. Harvesting with a binder or header may begin earlier, 4 to '7 days for the binder, and 3 t0 4. days with the header, than with the combine. The number of man hours per acre required to harvest and thresh with a stationary thresher when a binder and header are used, is reduced from 4.6 for the binder and 3.8 for the header to .75 when harvesting and threshing are performed in one operation by the combine. Costs per acre of operating a combine are estimated from available data as follows: repairs 10 to 15 cents, fuel and lubricants 25 to 36 cents, depreciation 32 to 36 cents, interest 11 to 13 cents, tractor fixed cost 11 to 20 cents, and labor 29 to 53 cents. The total cost per acre ranged from $1.42 to $2.06. The average number of days of harvesting was 18.5. The most common sizes of combines used ranged from 12 to 16. feet and were of engine type. The number of acres harvested per day varied from 15.6 for the 8-foot power take-off to 53 for the 20-foot auxiliary- engine type. Eleven hours per day was the average number of hours of harvesting. From one-third to one-half of all machines did custom cutting. Fairly satisfactory results may be secured in harvesting grain sorghums with the combine if the proper adjustments are made and if the ma- chine is handled with care.