Published by 
The Rural Publishing Co. 
333 W. 30th Street 
The Rural New Yorker 
Weekly, One Dollar Per Year 
Postpaid 
New York 
The Business Farmer’s Paper 
Single Copies, hive Cents 
Vol. LXXIII NEW YORK, OCTOBER 31, 1914 No. 4279 
THE COST OF GROWING WHEAT 
Cut in Two by Changed Methods. 
ALUE OF CROP RECORDS.—Farming is not 
and never can be an exact science. This is no 
excuse for the indefiniteness and the lack of 
knowledge of the costs of production, which charac¬ 
terize much of our farming. Carefully-kept records 
not only offer the most accurate information possible 
about a crop, but stimulate one to try to lower his 
costs of production, increase the efficiency of his 
labor, and modify his methods so as to get larger 
yields at a less cost per 
unit. At Beeclnvood 
Farm, in Monroe Coun¬ 
ty. New York, careful 
records have been kept 
on all the crops for six 
years. These records 
are particularly inter¬ 
esting in the case of 
wheat, of which nearly 
SO acres and 2,000 bush¬ 
els have been grown 
during this period. The 
records which follow 
are given as a four-year 
average, from 1909 to 
1912, and as a two-year 
average for 1913 and 
1914. The reason for 
this grouping lies in the 
change in the rotation 
system, which was made 
in 1913, and which has 
greatly reduced the cost 
of production. 
CHANGE IN ROTA¬ 
TION.—Up to 1913 our 
rotation had always 
been from five to seven 
or eight years in length, 
somewhat as follows: 
Corn, oats, wheat, hay 
one to three years, 
beans sometimes follow¬ 
ed by wheat, but more 
often by oats, etc. After 
keeping records for four 
years. It was found that 
under our conditions, 
corn and oats were not 
profitable crops, and 
they were dropped from 
the rotation, except as 
substitute or emergency 
crops. Since 1913. the 
rotation has been one of 
four years, as follows: 
(1) beans, (2) wheat, 
(3) clover hay, (4) 
mixed clover and Tim¬ 
othy hay. The change 
has resulted in a much 
lower production cost 
for three reasons: (11 it 
permitted a rearrange¬ 
ment of fields (our soil 
is quite uniform and our 
fields level) so as to in¬ 
crease the average size 
of the wheat fields from 
10.S acres to IS acres. 
Larger fields reduce the 
labor costs considerably, 
our experience has 
shown: (2) it made possible the sowing of wheat 
after beans without plowing, at the same time less¬ 
ening the cost of preparing the seed bed: (3) the 
yield of wheat was increased because of the better 
seed bed, which it was possible to secure by the new 
method. This, I think, is common experience among 
western New York farmers. 
LABOR COSTS.—Labor costs are the largest 
which enter into the cost of producing wheat, 
amounting to from one-third to one-half of the total 
cost. Of this total labor cost, man labor comprises 
about two-fifths, and horse labor three-fifths. IVe 
figure the rates per hour for this labor as 20 cents 
for men and 15 cents for horses, after carefully keep¬ 
ing records to ascertain these costs. The tables on 
next page show the total amount and distribution of 
these labor costs for the six-year period. 
From first table it will be seen that from 1909 to 
1912, twenty-six and one-fourth man and forty-three 
and one-half horse hours were required to produce 
an acre of wheat. By making the change in the rota¬ 
tion the labor cost of production was reduced to 20 
man and 21 horse hours. The cash value of this sav¬ 
ing amounted to $4.58. as shown in the table which 
follows. The saving was effected chiefly by doing 
A HOPEFUL YOUNG GARDENER. Fig. 541. 
away with the necessity of plowing the land for 
wheat after beans, but also by a considerably less¬ 
ened cost of preparing the land after beans had been 
removed, than of preparing freshly-plowed ground. 
The increased size of the fields probably decreased 
the amount of the labor. This saving was even more 
pronounced in the horse hours than in the man 
hours. It should be pointed out also that the total 
hours saved would have been still larger had the 
yield remained the same. The increased yield, how¬ 
ever. increased the cost of harvesting, hauling, 
thrashing and marketing. 
GASH COSTS SUMMARY.—The next table shows 
the labor converted to cash, together with the cash 
items involved in the production of wheat. 
It will be noted that the cost of fertilizer was 
slightly less in the last two years than in the first 
four years, due to absence of manure. When manure 
was used 50 per cent, of its value was charged to the 
first crop, 30 per cent, to the second and 20 per cent, 
to the third. Since less equipment was used this 
cost was reduced slightly. Overhead expenses in¬ 
clude beside taxes and insurance, all items charge 
able to the farm, but not to any particular crop. 
These are distributed among all the productive en 
terprises of the farm 
The land is valued at 
$100 an acre, upon 
which an interest rate 
of 5 per cent, is charged, 
as this is the rate at 
which money can bo 
borrowed on mortgage 
in this community. By 
this change in rotation 
$4.09 was saved, prac¬ 
tically changing the bal 
ance of the wheat from 
the debit to the credit 
side. Ninety per cent 
of the saving was in la 
bor costs. 
COSTS PER BUSH 
EL.—In order that it 
may be more clearly 
seen just what these 
figures mean, I have 
divided them into costs 
per bushel for each year 
in the last table. 
In the last table from 
the total cost per acre 
has been deducted the 
value of the straw, the 
yield and price per ton 
of which are given. The 
value of the straw, 
none of which is sold, is 
based on one-lialf the 
current price of hay at 
the barn. The net cost 
of the grain per acre is 
then divided by the 
yield of grain per acre, 
giving a cost per bushel 
In arriving at the aver 
age cost per bushel foi 
each period, the net 
costs per bushel each 
year have been added 
and then divided by 
four and two years re¬ 
spectively. 
REDUCTION IN 
COST.—From this tabic 
we learn that the cosi 
per bushel of growing 
wheat on this particu 
lar farm has been re 
duced from $1.11. under 
the old method, to about 
one-half or 54 cents per 
bushel under the new 
method. The average 
cost per bushel for the 
six years is 92 cents, 
which is just about the 
average selling price. 
By the old method, 
growing wheat was a losing proposition; by the new 
it is fairly profitable. The difference is due both to a 
decrease in the cost of production and to an in¬ 
crease in the yield, both brought about by improved 
methods and culture. It is true that in the first four 
year average we had two very poor crops of wheat. 
The 1912 crop in particular was very poor, due to 
winter killing, and to an attack of the Hessian Uy. 
But between the years 1909 and 1913, and between 
the years 1910 and 1914, there is a very fair com¬ 
parison, since the yields are practically the same. 
In both cases the costs of growing wheat in the new 
rotations are nearly 25 per cent., or from IS to 22 
