COST OF USING POWER ON WHEAT FARMS IN OREGON 33 
Thirty-nine reported as a disadvantage that the combine scatters 
the straw and chaff. The straw and chaff is not left in large stacks, 
as is the case with the stationary thresher, but is left in small plies. 
They can be readily picked up with forks and hauled to stacks for 
feeding. 
Eighteen owners said there was a saving in grain by the use of the 
combine, but 20 reported that the combine method of harvesting 
wastes grain. The combine wastes grain in two ways: (1) Through 
shattering in the field if left standing too long before harvesting 
and (2) because of inefficient handling of the machine by the sepa- 
rator tender. It requires a more experienced man to handle a com- 
bine as effectively as a stationary outfit, but a good separator tender 
ean so handle his machine that very little grain is lost through the 
machine. 
Eleven combine owners mentioned as an advantage that combines 
have the ability to separate the chaff from the straw, and five said 
that hired men prefer the combine to the stationary thresher. 
The fact that the combine scatters the grain sacks was mentioned 
by 18 men and the scattering of weed seeds by 10 men. The packing 
of the soil, high repair cost, rough topography, first cost and depre- 
ciation, and mechanical trouble was mentioned by a relatively small 
number of combine owners. The larger combines are equipped with 
leveling devices which adapt them to fairly rough and uneven land. 
The difficulties due to rough topography were mentioned mainly by 
combine owners of the smaller machines which were not equipped 
with leveling devices. 
Thus it is seen that these farmers were divided on a number of 
points concerning the advantages or disadvantages of the use of 
combines. These differences of opinions may have a number of 
causes, such as lay of land and extent of experience of operator 
regarding both methods of harvesting and threshing. 
COST OF USING COMBINES 
As in the case of tractor costs, the items of expense in the opera- 
tion of motor-driven combines have been expressed, wherever pos- 
sible, in terms of physical quantities. The figures showing the quan- 
tities and costs of fuel, lubricants, and days of repair work, as well 
as the other items of expense, are the average for the three-year 
period, 1920-1922, and represent the amounts used by the actual 
number reporting an expense for these items. Over the three-year 
period records were obtained from 32 owners of 9-foot combines; 
from 24 owners of 12 and 14 foot; from 24 owners of 16 and 18 foot; 
from 17 owners of 20 and 22 foot; and from 4 owners of 24-foot com- 
bines, or a total of 101 different motor-driven combines. Records 
were obtained on 52 of these combines for 3 years, on 29 for 2 years, 
and on 20 for 1 year, making, for the three-year period, a total of 
234 reports on the cost of using combines. 
Items here considered as a cost of operating motor-driven com- 
bines are fuel, oils and grease, repairs, insurance, depreciation, and 
interest. The yearly cost divided by the total number of 10-hour 
days the combine was used during the year gives the average cost of 
operation per 10-hour day, 
