Contribution ee Office of Farm Management 
W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief 
Washington, D.C. Vv February 13, 1918 
COST OF HARVESTING WHEAT BY DIFFERENT 
METHODS. 
By ARNOLD P. YERKES, Assisiant Agriculturist, and L. M. Cuurcu, Assistant in 
Farm Accounting. 
CONTENTS. 
Page. | Page. 
Development of wheat-harvesting methods. 1 | SGC loli re ee Se Ee De ey are ee Cia 13 
Tne looses Seen lees hs A eae ree eee BL PELGAC EES ica ih ene ana. ua Nan mean 15 
SilvOelaimoe ite mipgsia-eu PONE ES SS ge li | COUTDINES 2 Se A ES A AE eae eek 18 
Comparison of costs—old methods vs. new. - IE} 
DEVELOPMENT OF WHEAT-HARVESTING METHODS. 
Within the memory of men now living, the entire wheat crop of 
this country was cut with cradles, bound by hand, and thrashed with 
flails, crude thrashing machines, or tramped out by animals drawing 
spiked rollers. The cost of harvesting and thrashing wheat by such 
means was naturally high, usually consuming one-fifth of the value 
of the crop.t But the time required to do the work when such 
methods were used was even more important than the expense in 
volved, as it increased the danger of loss from storms to a great ey.- 
tent, and demanded a large number of hands to harvest even a hmit_d 
acreage within the season available. It was necessary to start cutting 
at the earliest possible moment, selecting those parts of the field 
where the grain ripened first, in order to insure completing the 
harvest before heavy losses occurred from shattering the over-ripe 
grain. ‘Two acres was considered a fair day’s work for a man 
in cradling wheat, and another hand would be kept busy bind- 
ing and shocking the wheat cut by one cradler. It is obvious that 
the acreage of wheat that could be raised per farm under such con- 
ditions was very limited because of the large amount of hand-labor 
involved. | 
ee —— a 
1Tenth Census of the U. 8S. (1880), Vol. III, p. 529. 
15472°-18-—Bull. 627— 1 
