22 



BULLETIN" 338, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE. 



Table XX. — Relation of the annual outlay for repairs to the first cost and present value 

 of farm implements in western New York. 



Implement. 



Average 

 size. 



First cost. 



Per cent of 

 first cost 



expended 

 annually 



for repairs. 



present 

 value. 



Per cent 

 of present 

 value ex- 

 pended an- 

 nually for 



repairs. 



"Walking plow 



Sulky plow 



Spring-tooth harrow. 

 Spike-tooth harrow. . 



Disk harrow 



Land roller 



Grain drill 



Corn planter 



Do 



1-horse cultivator 



Riding cultivator 



Cabbage setter 



Mower 



Hay rake 



Hay tedder 



Bean harvester 



Grain binder 



Corn binder 



11.8 inches. 

 13.3 inches. 



6.9 feet 



11 feet 



6.4 feet 



8.1 feet 



6.2 feet 



1-row 



2-row 



5.2 feet 



9.8 feet.... 



6 feet. 



$10. 00 



42.50 

 17.50 

 17.00 

 27.00 

 24.00 

 72.00 

 12.00 

 40.00 

 6.50 

 32.00 

 45.00 

 41.00 

 24.00 

 34.00 

 25.00 

 125. 00 

 125. 00 



20.5 

 5.0 

 4.3 

 2.0 

 1.8 

 2.0 

 1.8 

 5.8 

 4.2 

 5.4 

 3.1 

 2.5 

 4.4 

 1.5 

 1.2 

 4.0 

 1.6 

 1.6 



$5.43 

 23.88 



9.54 



9.01 

 14.54 

 12.75 

 38.19 



6.51 

 21.82 



3.48 

 17.28 

 24.26 

 21.89 

 12.83 

 18.31 

 13.47 

 66.56 

 69.54 



37.8 

 8.9 

 7.9 

 3.8 

 3.4 

 3.8 

 3.3 



10.6 

 7.7 



10.0 

 5.7 

 4.7 

 8.3 

 2.8 

 2.2 

 7.5 

 3.1 

 2.9 



From Table XX it appears that the walking plow is the only im- 

 plement that requires much over 5 per cent of its first cost to be ex- 

 pended annually for repairs; corn planters are so little used here that 

 the data for these implements, showing 5 per cent annually, may be 

 only approximately correct. 



Tabulation of the repair expense according to the age of the im- 

 plements showed no uniform increase in repair cost as the age in- 

 creased, the repairs being low the first year or two and practically 

 the same per year thereafter. 



SHELTER. 



Much has been written and said about the waste incurred by lack 

 of housing for machinery on farms. Many large and successful 

 farmers do not shelter their machinery at all. The principle which 

 guides them is that if a machine not housed at all will wear out before 

 it is injured by exposure there is no need to shelter it. The larger 

 the amount of work that can be done with an implement annually, 

 therefore, the less need there is to house it. The waste, by depre- 

 ciation, of capital invested in farm machinery is caused, primarily 

 by the inability of the smaller farms to wear out their implements 

 with profitable use. An economic remedy is partial reorganization 

 of their business and cooperation with neighbors so that more work 

 can be done annually with the machinery equipment. 



There are no data available on the relative life of machinery when 

 housed and when not housed. Careful study of the cost of housing 

 farm machinery in an area in eastern New York indicated that farm- 

 ers do not invest in special machinery shelter to a greater extent 

 than 20 per cent of the first cost of their implements. Similar data 

 from eastern Nebraska gave a percentage of 10 or less, the relative 



