Full text of "Corn-harvesting machinery"

See other formats

gu wy : Issued January 4, 1907.
-U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS—BULLETIN 173,

A. C. TRUE, Director.

al ZN, BE BO),
EXPERT IN FARM MECHANICS.

WASHINGTON:
‘GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

1907.

Mono graph

Hey,

PoP Val

nd im
ae

7 - ' :
;
ae = AM
i 1 i
:
<
1
'
q
ad
ni
( ae i
,
i
in
i
i
i
g
'
4
wei
3
t
Fi
_
,
3
t
,
-

911 Issued January 4, 1907,

Us DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS—BULLETIN 173.

A. C. TRUE, Director.

CORN-HARVESTING MACHINERY.

Cre J: GENCE EE:
EXPERT IN FARM MECHANICS.

WASHINGTON:

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFTICS,
LS Oe

Coe esi

THE OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS.
STAFF.

A. C. True, D. Se.—Dvrrector.

E. W. Atuen, Ph. D.— Assistant Director and Editor of Expervment Station Record.
W. H. Beat, B. A., M. E.—Chief of Editorial Division.

Exwoop Mean, D. E.—Chief of Irrigation and Drainage Investigations.

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.

U.S. DEPARTMENT oF AGRICULTURE,
OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS,
Washington, D. C., September 25, 1906.

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on Corn-
harvesting Machinery, by C. J. Zintheo, of this Office: This report
briefly sketches the history of corn-harvesting machinery in this
country, describing in more or less detail the various implements and
machines which have been used and are now in use, and discusses
the economy of using such labor-saving devices.

On a large part of the corn land of this country the grain only is
harvested, leaving the stalks in the field to be consumed by cattle to
some extent, but principally to go to waste, and remain in the way
of subsequent cultivation. In this way a large part of the food value
of the corn plant is lost. The great object of the introduction of
corn-harvesting machinery is to prevent this loss.

The report gives figures as to the value of corn fodder, and the cost
of gathering it with the various machines described.

Such a report should be of value to the farmers in the corn-growing
sections, and its publication as a bulletin of this Office is reeom- —
mended.

Respectfully,
A. C. True, Director.
Hon. JAmMrEs WILson,

Secretary of Agriculture.
(2)

JAN 19 1907
D. of D,

CONTENTS.

TESS CISD ie ee OO heheh Sh gee ae ee SE ee a
Pattee mennods OF WarvestiNe COM 52 sos .c.n iden Sloe A tes Sonne eh S hoe
EPS Si oe ye 8 ree el RR ee Pe
Fubene-or suippime the leaves 2.0223 ies Sole Bra Lever tate
Seer De euiunin ee Winns eMENOR 22S Mea bs uel ee Sune Bo EPO Sale
CAE STCTRES AVGTS GAY ULB E TY 9°00 0 DRS peg de aaa eg ea SE Oe eg ee
Sledsharyesters and similarideyices:. 3 hoa 3s Pe ed
MormentnMeny 6 mom on ak = 5 Fe ag te Ge Re a See Sea age
PETBUOBLC AIL Aae ewe ae fee oS eR Oe a ee eRe ORR Bae Pe TS
“CYOURYS, BT cey OT ee SERPe pts SRC=» aNd ora ange a a Se

btRia emerge ete oath: Mase gee no tee Seas tga er Sh PEA. kls
BecceORCHib OMC YER an aE Ot Sh Lar 2 a seo at eh Ores OSS yg

POM NIER IASC NE te Be Oy on heh Ne Sie ee Berl ea PM (ao Sars b ine Cee
BIPerIp MDS Ws fase og. Sas: ENT Nt tent SR nh EE eee ae ee

Detiiers Aree ClO Mies Leena ee a cee ANE Le OS ee
CMI ne Ocenia ce * vette POM tes ten: ae sin ee Sele 2 ecm et ac

OIA TMI SES ig Dae Soe SSE ne an > Rg eNO Le
LL ESOS ENACT 20 os eo aR ere Snientfo ep aes ea an Sa eg a
UOMO LI AD VADTAPOH =. yim Lois wee eS 50s Soe ty a poet he eee pee
Rca oreo harvesting machinery... -. 25-242. 22. s ae fe he ss
Cutting and shredding machines.............--.-.---.-- PES Recah 8S A et I
LACE EDD CLVEENGE CTS 5 GS es a ne ete re ee Rely ek a
eM IeICITI Ce ViIGESGm fie ky ane oe eer e Fee t oalo n o te ae
Huapeneineonanicn HUsKEnd= = ne se ete eee eo SS
Penninimensbielvers, and shred ders. -) 2a ise. 22.22 Ss b= ee bs t= 72 eell see
Met nierepertimerCOr MOU Or es a.8 Seo wep s ot re ee hee epee od
cetera t ene ee WIPE! TRG) Sere etre ke ee een ie SE OS on oo tk Sa eo LA tle
LISS SUL/SLPT 210 EGG 100 6 a) A ee ea ee ye a ee
SUERTE Sas ee OS eee a are a ean ee IR
Oh SUSI SS 2S Se es acter Ses oereee kee ee ee ee

ILLUSTRATIONS.

PLATES.

Puate I. Fig. 1—Corn shocker unloading the shock. Fig. 2.—Corn shocker

returning the central cotec 22952262) i See ee ee ee

II. Corn-shock loader: Fig. 1—Loaded. Fig. 2.—Empty -..........--

Tit. Modem corm pickers 2 ov 3722 eye Shee eee ee
IV. Husker and shredder run by gasoline engine..................-..--

TEXT FIGURES.

Bre. eaCorn hooks 270.0. h Sac See SS ee ee ek a
2.' Hoot device ior.cuttine core 45. ase. 2255) ae ee ee ee ee
3. "Wooden horse used to support/shock= 2: <.- 725). 2 ee ee
4 One-row, sled! harvester. 2:22 So. 22 jaa Poa Se ee
5. Two-row sledcharvesters 27)+ 72.65 ae ae a
6; Improved, one-row sled harvester: 4. 2.23: 432 2 24e eee ae ee
7. Corn harvester with automatic knife guards. ..........-/2./.......2!
8. Two-row corn harvester with stationary lift...................-.-.---
9. Rear view of two-row corn harvester... 442). 4222 ce. 4. ee eee

10;;; An early corn-harvester’ 2 2. Sats ee ee oe
i1.Vertical: corm harvester in the‘field: 7-.-: S.2h oe ae ee
12. Skeleton frame of corn binder, showing chains....-................--
13. Frame.of corn binder; showime¢e mechanism: 222.2225.) 322 -- ee
14: Binder attachments .42 $27 32 eee ee On ee ee
15. Inclined corn binder, showing tilting lever and guide rod........-.---
16. Corn-stubble cutter, attached to corm harvester ...............-.--..-
ii7. Gorn: harvester and shockers. £2 >: 22 hase Po ee
18. A. corn-picking machine=,.-=tec. vei. eae eoees ee tee
19. “Cylindrical: feed cuttert= 20. sc Sac tee ee eee ee
20. Self-feeding ensilage cutter with blower... ......-..---.------------
71, Corm ‘shredder :*. Sse One ee ee. ee
22) Skeletomol husker,and shredders... see) eee eee
23. Forms of shredder heads-.....-.--- 2 sha ae A NS eee eS SIS!
24. Safety device for shredder..........-...-- (ee Se ee eee ee

(4)

Page

28
30
32
42

CORN-HARVESTING MACHINERY.

INTRODUCTION.

Corn was the earliest as it is the most important cultivated crop on
the American farm. When the first colonists settled on American
soil they found the Indians producing corn, and also preparing
various foods from it. The first corn grown by white men was that
of the Virginia Colony, at Jamestown, in 1608, and it is claimed that
two Indians taught them how to plant and cultivate the crop. The
product of this harvest served almost as the sole food supply of the
colony. The early Massachusetts colonists, too, received their first
lessons in corn cultivation from the Indians. The first fields culti-
vated by the settlers there were those which had been left vacant by
the Indians.

The United States census of 1840 gives the corn yield for that year
as 377,518,875 bushels. The following census (1850) places the yield
at 592,000,000 bushels, with a corn acreage of 31,000,000. During
the civil war little advance was made in the production of corn. In
the year 1900 the United States alone produced 2,105,102,516 bushels,
or about 75 per cent of the total crop of the world. In 1904 the yield
of corn reached 2,467,480,934 bushels, and the acreage 92,231,581.

It is only when compared with the production of other cereals that
the importance of this crop is fully appreciated. At the present time
one-fifth of the area in improved land in the United States, one-third
the area in crops of all kinds except pasture, and one-half the area in
cereal crops is devoted to corn. In 1899, while 35 per cent of the
farmers of the United States raised wheat, 82 per cent raised corn.
The total combined yield of wheat, oats; barley, rye, and buckwheat
in the United States amounted in 1904 to 1,673,995,336 bushels, and
the acreage was 79,649,720—these figures equaling two-thirds of the
. yield and four-fifths of the acreage of the corn crop. The farm value
of the corn crop for 1904 was $1,087,461,440, while the combined
value of the other crops mentioned for the same year yee $877 ,120,785
or SS 80 per cent of the wae of uho ¢ corn ops en 1905 the

aU. Ss. Dept. Ney. yeaeene 1904, p. 628. b Ibid. , p. 629.
(5)

yield of the corn crop was 2,708,000,000 bushels and the value
$1,116,700,000.

There may be, moreover, a double harvest from every field of corn—
that of the grain and that of the fodder. There are thousands of
farmers in the United States who in the last few years have doubled
the profit they used to make on their corn crop, by harvesting the
whole plant—stalks, leaves, and all—yet there are tens of thousands
of other farmers who still “‘snap” or husk their corn in the field, letting
the stalks and blades go largely to waste. It has been demonstrated
beyond a doubt that when properly harvested corn fodder is as
nutritious as good hay. The farmer who would receive the full value
of his crop should secure this fodder with as much care as he gives his
hay, taking care that it is harvested at the proper period, and not
allowed to have. the nutrients it contains leachéd out by rains or
injured by frost.

The composition of the dry matter of the fodder corn varies greatly
with the season. The yield of food material increases with the
advancing age of the corn, the largest amount being obtained when
the corn is well ripened. Feeding experiments have been conducted
with corn fodder by which it has been determined that at least 45
per cent of the food value of the corn plant is in the stalk, and that
the stalk can be cut at the time the ear is dented without material
loss to the kernel. A mine of wealth is thus opened to those farmers
who are in position to make use of this fodder.

For years we have had machines which successfully harvest, thrash,
and clean the small grains, so that every part of the plants may serve
some useful purpose. The machinery for the care of the corn crop
has been much more difficult to develop than any other line of farm
implements. Altho there has been considerable progress in the har-
vesting of corn, no such profound changes have been made as those
in the harvesting of small grain. The larger part of the crop is still
husked by hand from the standing plant, and the crop is but partially
utilized. In large sections of the country only the ears are gathered,
while the leaves and stalks are almost a total loss.

After the success of mowing and reaping machines, inventors tried
to develop a corn harvester along the lines followed in the construc-
tion of those machines. The old methods of harvesting corn fodder
were slow, expensive, and laborious, and the manufacturers have long
sought to solve the problem. Their success is not as yet complete, ,
but the labor-saving devices so far perfected have largely changed
conditions. The corn may now be cut, husked, and shredded with
less labor than the cutting alone formerly required.

SIMPLE METHODS OF HARVESTING CORN.

TOPPING.

As a stock food, both the ears and the stalk of the corn plant have
been used from the earliest times. The Aztecs and the Peruvian
Indian tribes practised topping corn for this purpose at the time they
were conquered by the Spaniards. This method of securing fodder
was followed by the early colonists and continued to be the common
method until late in the nineteenth century. It is largely followed
in Italy, and is still practised in many parts of the South.

Before topping corn it is necessary to allow the ears to pass the
silking period in order to secure fertilization. If done before this the
erain fails to develop. Soon after fertilization has been accom-
plished the silk rapidly turns brown, and when the kernels have past
the milky state the corn plant is ready to top.

The topping was formerly done by a man who, with a sharp knife,
past along the row of corn and cut off the top just above the ear, and
also stript the leaves from that part of the stalk left standing in the
field. The parts cut off were laid in small piles to dry and were
afterwards tied into bundles. The bundles were set up in little shocks
and left until the fodder was sufficiently cured, when they were
hauled away and stacked near the feeding place. This feed was con-
sidered very valuable and was used for feeding the horses and oxen
in the spring before the grass came, when the work animals had the
hardest labor of the year to perform.

In regard to the advisability of toppmg corn, the Pennsylvania
Station’ found that, by topping, 1,050 pounds of fodder was obtained,
at a loss of 540 pounds of ear corn, as compared with allowing the
corn to ripen and merely gathering the ears. The Mississippi Station,?
as a result of a three years’ trial, found the net loss in feeding value
more than 20 per cent. Seven other stations show an average loss
which was “more than the feeding value of the fodder secured.”

At the Arkansas Station * neither topping nor pulling reduced the
yield so much as cutting and shocking the whole plant when the ears
were just past the roasting-ear stage, as shown in the following table: .

Effect of method of harvesting corn on the yield of grain.

| Loss per
| acre.

Pounds. Bushels. | Pounds.

Method of treatment. Yield per acre.

NOSES UNCUT G= -52/0 ea uas Soe aaa See oie fom sa ae ee eee ees eo See 1, 241 | 7 ER ee Poe
LEG TE PH OY ENCE SE is en ed Roe ne ey mE eae ee ee 1, 224 | 218 17
© TOASTS WS ERIC LF, tes oe Se es PS ee ae ar eee eee 1, 102 | 19 | 139
HSH aLTELORSEOC ke ik cima ne me Serene oe ae came Sa eae ee mR oe 1,075 19} | 166

a Pennsylvania Sta. Rpt. 1891, pp. 55-60. e Arkansas Sta. Bul. 24, p. 120.

b Mississippi Sta. Bul. 33, p. 64.

8
PULLING OR STRIPPING THE LEAVES.

Thruout the Southern States the leaves of the corn plant dry up
before the ears are mature, and the custom prevails of stripping the
leaves from the stalk while they are still green and the ears immature.
At least 8 experiment stations in the Southern States have investi-
gated the influence of this practise on the yield of corn and in general
report a decrease of 10 to 20 per cent. The earlier the work was done
the greater the loss. Redding, of Georgia, concluded that “pulling
fodder” is only expedient under the most favorable circumstances;
but where it is done the best practise is to strip the blades, from and
including the ear blade downward, at about the usual time of pulling,
and in a week or ten days to cut off the stalks above the ear. Besides
adding largely to the yield of stover this method is believed to be more
expeditious.

The Florida Station” reports that ‘pulling fodder” has the effect
of loosening the husks on the ear before the grain becomes hard, thus
promoting the ravages of the weevil.

CORN CUTTING WITH KNIVES.

The unsatisfactory results which followed when corn was topt or
stript, together with the extension of corn growing, led the farmers to
seek a better way of securing fodder. This was found in the method,
continued to our own time, of cutting the stalk close to the ground at
a time when no damage is done to the ripening grain and while, at the
same time, considerable of the saccharine juices still remain in the
stalk.

The implement first used for corn cutting was the hoe, or some-
thing akin to it, and it continued to be used as late as the beginning
of the nineteenth century. This was rather heavy and awkward to
handle and the work of harvesting was slow and exhausting. The
more progressive farmers discarded this crude implement and sub-
stituted the corn knife.

The diary of one early planter near Philadelphia tells the way in
which the corn knife was first used on his farm. ‘The use of a
sharpened blade for cutting corn was first begun by a negro who was
rather lazier than the rest and always sought to escape the harder
labors of the farm. He wrapt one end of a broken sithe blade with
a cloth and, using this for a handle, was able to cut three times as
much corn as he had cut with the hoe, and that with less fatigue.”’

Many kinds of blades were used for the purpose, but among them
the sithe blade was most largely employed. It was customary to cut
these blades in two parts. The knife made from the point of the

than that made from the shank end, and of better shape. Sometimes
a shank was made by beating and hammering the upper end of the
blade into proper shape, and sometimes by cutting away the thin part
of the blade for a few inches. By many these old homemade knives
are much preferred to the factory-made knife now almost
universally used. Thé factory-made knives are of all sizes
and shapes. The corn hook (fig. 1) now extensively used is
generally considered even more convenient than the corn knife.
In figure 2 is shown a form of corneutter which is fastened
to the boot. This implement is pushed with considerable
force against the stalks, severing them close to the ground.
It is unnecessary to stoop over the work when using. it.
Another form of this implement is made so as to be fastened
to the forearm. This form is very convenient for topping.
When the corn is cut with a corn knife, it is customary to set
it up in shocks to cure. Shocks vary greatly in size, ranging
from 6 hills square (36 hills to the shock) to
16 hills square (256 hills); a very common
size is 12 hills square (144 hills). Shocks of
the smaller sizes are common in the North
Atlantic States, where, according to the
Connecticut Station, it is more difficult to
preserve flint-corn stover; while 10 hills square and 12 hills square
are common sizes in the North Central States. A common method
is to tie the tops of 4 hills together as they stand, and then to cut and
shock the rest of the plants around these.
This form is called a four-saddle_ shock.
Another method of making the shock is to
use a wooden horse as a temporary support.
In either case the shock is built around the
support with great care to prevent it from
being blown over by heavy winds or dam-
aged by rain. In some cases the corn is tied
into small bundles which are set together
to form the shock; more commonly the
stalks are gathered as cut and set up an arm-
ful at a time. Where the wooden horse is
used, the shock is built about the horse by
leaning the first bundles or armfuls against
a pair of projecting arms formed by inserting ! ?-—Feet ip fer eabiiig
a pole thru a hole bored at right angles to ;
the horse (fig. 3). When the shock has been set up the pole is with-
drawn and the horse removed. When completed, the shock is tightly
tied near the top. In the past shocks have been tied with bark or

12211—No. 173—07——2

Fic. 1.—Corn hook.

grass, or more commonly by means of a stalk of corn or two stalks
twisted together; but now since twine has become cheaper it is
extensively used. A rope with a hook at one end is sometimes used
to draw the tops together before tying. Sometimes shocks are
allowed to stand without being tied.

After the fodder has become cured, which usually takes about a
month, the shocks are generally husked by hand in the field, and the
stover is commonly tied into bundles, tho this is by no means a uni-
versal practise. The stover is then shocked up again. Frequently
the stover from two or more shocks of corn is put up in a single shock.
For convenience in husking a movable table is sometimes used, on
which the stalks are laid while being husked. The ears are thrown in
piles on the ground near the shocks, and afterwards hauled to the
crib. The stover issometimes hauled to the barn and stored but often
it is left standing in the field till needed for feeding during the winter.

It is important to
choose suitable weather
conditions for husking,
since if the plants are too
dry the stalks will break
and blades will fall off
and be lost. On _ the
other hand extremely wet
AN weather makes the ground

F1G. 3.—Wooden horse used to support shock. too soft for hauling in the
corn.

The cost of these methods of caring for the corn crop varies with
the locality and the year. Taking the average of the replies to 200
inquiries, it has been learned that one man is able to cut and shock by
hand about 34 shocks 12 hills square, or nearly 14 acres of corn per
day. The average cost per shock for cutting by hand is 6.5 cents, or
$1.50 per acre.

The advantage of cutting the cornstalks and allowing them to cure
in the field is strikingly illustrated in an experiment conducted at the
Georgia Experiment Station.“ One acre of land was laid off into
52 4-foot rows, and planted in corn. From 20 of these rows the
leaves were pulled and carefully cured and weighed. This required
the labor of four men during two hours, the cost being 40 cents, or
$1.04 per acre. On the same day 16 rows were cut and shocked,
which required the time of four men one hour, the cost being only 20
cents, or $0.65 per acre. The remaining 16 rows were left untouched
until the ears were fully matured, when they were husked and the

a Georgia Sta. Bul. 51, pp. 280-281.

stalks were cut and weighed. On the same day the ears of the other
lots were husked and weighed, and all the fodder was cut, weighed,
and shredded. The following table gives the result of the experiment:

Results of harvesting corn by different methods.

Total
EP ee Shelled Blade apt ese value of
How harvested. corn. | fodder. Stover. product
per acre.

| Bushels. | Pounds. | Pounds. |

i= Blades pulled: stalks) harvested!...-22.-..--s2.-4.--22-20+-- 47.24 585 2,012 | $35.18
2. Blades pulled; stalks not harvested -.......--.-.--.----..-- 47.24 Set | anes. Se 27.13
CES UMIRA CITMATICMBNOCKEG 452 re.) oe-. 2. ee ale UIC esi Ss Se ae ates 3,037 39.55
4. Kars husked and stalks eut when dry.....-..---...-----.--- 45.43 ha Sees ar et 2,195 | 31.49

The total values are based on the following prices: Shelled corn, 50
cents per bushel; naked, weather-beaten stalks and husks shredded,
40 cents per hundredweight; the stover, including stalks, blades, and
shucks from the shocks, 50 cents per hundredweight; cured corn
blades, 60 cents per hundredweight.

The plats on which the stalks were cut and shocked yielded 1.5
bushels more than plats on which blades were pulled, and 3.314
bushels per acre more than the plats on which the stalks were left
-untouched.

In discussing the experiment, Professor Redding says:

The economic results are so strikingly in favor of the cutting and shocking method of
harvesting the corn crop that there can be no further doubt of its great economy.

The results of the foregoing experiment confirm the experience gained in the last
five years in regard to methods of harvesting corn, and strengthen the conclusion
already reached, that it is much more economical to cut the stalks down and shock them
than to pull the fodder in August or to husk the ears in September or October.

MACHINES FOR HARVESTING CORN.

SLED HARVESTERS AND SIMILAR DEVICES.

As early as the year 1820 attempts were made to construct .a
mechanical corn harvester. From that year until 1892 all attempts
to perfect such a machine were unsuccessful. The machines invented

a The larger yield of shelled corn from the plat that was cut and shocked should not
be counted in favor of that method of harvesting. It is explained as follows in the
Georgia billetin just cited: ‘‘The increased weight of grain for the plats on which the
stalks were cut and shocked can be credited to the fact that the ears left on both the
other series of plats were drier, because fully exposed to the sun and wind. The cause
of difference was overlooked at the time and until too late to remedy. * * * No
gain in the weight of grain from the cut and shocked plats was expected, and the results
would have been entirely satisfactory had there been a small loss as the result of cutting
down the stalks.’’—Enprror.

were patterned after the mower and the reaper, but owing to the size
of the corn plant these machines either would not cut at all or were
soon broken under the heavy strain. Some of the machines, how-
ever, had commendable mechanical features which were embodied
in machines invented later.

Many homemade harvesting devices of the sled pattern have been
made from time to time, some of which are illustrated in figures 4, 5,
and 6. The first harvester
of this class was patented
by J. C. Peterson, of West
Mansfield, Ohio, who put
one in the field in 1886.
Others followed and added
improvements until eight or
ten harvesters of this kind
were in the field.

With most of the sled
harvesters the driver rode
on the platform, and it was necessary for him to gather the stalks in his
arms in advance of the cutting edge, so as to prevent them from falling
in various directions. This method of harvesting was very exhausting.
The harvester shown in figure 6 was an improvement, in that the
guiding arm collected the stalks on the platform and it was only
necessary for the driver to pick the stalks from the sled at inter-
vals and throw them on the ground. As an improvement, in order
to reduce the draft, the sled was mounted on wheels (fig. 7). This
machine cuts two rows at a time,
and two men sit on the platform,
one facing each row, to guide the
corn against the cutting edge with
one hand, and with the other hand
and arm to collect the cut corn on
the tilting-side part or wing of the
platform, drawing it back against
the leg, where it is assembled until
enough has been collected to form Fret §intwewow sled wae
a shock. The stalks are then tied
together into a small shock, and the side platform is so tilted as to
deposit it upon the ground in an upright position. This form of corn
harvester is still used quite extensively. It has automatic knife
guards by which the cutting edge of the knife is covered with a plate
of steel when the machine is not in use. This lessens the danger of
injury to men and animals, which often happens when the cutting
blades are left exposed. The tilting parts or wings of the platform

Fig. 4.—One-row sled harvester.

may be raised into a vertical position to pass obstructions, or may be
folded back against the seat standard. The wheels can be adjusted
to cut corn high or low.

Fic. 6.—Improved one-row harvester.

To reduce the labor involved in cutting corn with the machines
described, another form of corn harvester was invented, as shown in
figures 8 and 9. This machine consists of two driving wheels, between
which is mounted the frame for the driving mechanism and platform.
It is drawn by one horse, which walks between the two rows that are
cut at the same time. The dividers pick up the lodged corn, except

Fic. 7.—Corn harvester with automatic knife guards.

such as lies in the row of corn away from the machine, and guide it
to the cutting apparatus, which consists of two stationary side blades,
above which is a movable sickle, which cuts the corn and deposits it

horizontally on a platform that is elevated about 6 inches above the
cutting apparatus. On the inner side is a guide chain, which assists
in directing the stalks of corn to the knife and the platform. The
rear part of the machine is provided with a small wheel, above which
is a tilting.lever, by means of which the dividers in front can be
raised or lowered to gather up the lodged corn until it comes in con-
tact with the endless chain, which carries it backward until it is cut
and deposited on the platform, as shown in figure 9. The machine
shown in figure 8 has low wheels and stationary cut, while the one
shown in figure 9 can, by means of side levers, be adjusted to cut the
corn from 2 to 15 inches from the ground.

arity
<n

(ii;

F1a@. 8.—Two-row corn harvester with stationary lift.

Machines of this type gather and cut the corn and drop it on the
platform. When there is enough to start a shock the horse is stopt
and the two men who follow the machine gather the corn from the
platform and set it up around the shock pole and tie it. They then
start the horse again, and when returning across the field the horse is
stopt opposite the shock, to which more corn is added, and this is
continued until the shock is of the desired size. When the shock row
has been started the shock pole is pushed in so as to be out of the way
(fig. 8) while the balance of the corn is being cut. This will save
carrying the corn around the pole. The machine may also be backed
up to the shock instead of the corn being carried to it from the
machine.

The sled harvesters and corn harvesters of the same type vary in
price from $5 for the simpler forms, which are made at home by the
farmer, to $55 for the more elaborate machines as shown in figures 8
and 9. These harvesters have one great advantage over the more
complicated machines in that the first cost is low. For this reason
every farmer, even with only a few acres of corn to cut, can afford fo
have one. It requires but one horse for motive power, and very
little if any twine is used to tie the shocks. However, if the corn is
tangled or lodged the cruder forms of these harvesters can not be used,
as the corn must stand straight and the horse walk rather fast in
order that the harvester may do perfect work. It is also rather hard
work for the men to gather and shock the corn. The work of har-

Fig. 9.—Rear view of two-row corm harvester.

vesting corn is such that only the best construction can withstand
the strain for any great while, and hence these machines are being
used less than formerly, even in those sections of the country where
they were once extensively introduced.

In regard to the cost of harvesting corn with these machines the
following questions were sent out to numerous farmers in various
sections of the country where corn is raised:

1. With a sled harvester, how many acres of corn can be cut per day?

2. How much does it cost per acre to harvest corn with a sled harvester? (a) Cost
of machine——. (6) Driver and team (c) Twine (d) Extra shocker .

From the 90 replies received in answer to these questions, it was
learned that the minimum in acreage of corn cut per day is 2 acres,
and the maximum 10 acres. The average from all the replies

received equals 4.67 acres of corn which can be cut per day by two
men and one horse using the sled harvester.

In reply to the question as to cost per acre for harvesting corn,
the minimum price reported was 55 cents per acre and the maximum
$2. Taking the average of all the replies received, the cost of har-
vesting corn with a sled harvester is $1.18 per acre. This is estimated
on a basis of 18 cents per acre, or 84 cents per day for the use of the
machine and repairs; 4 cents per acre, or 19 cents per day for twine;
58.5 cents per acre, or $2.75 per day for one horse and a man who does
part of the shocking; and 37.5 cents per acre, or $1.75 per day for the
other shocker. Comparing this cost per acre with that of hand cut-
ting (p. 46), it will be noted that there is a saving of 32 cents per
were in favor of the machines. It will also be noticed that two men
and a horse, with a sled harvester, can cut and shock 4.67 acres per
day as against 1.47 acres per day for one man with a knife, which
gives a credit of 1.73 acres per day for the work of the horse, or a con-
siderable saving in favor of the machine. The work may thus be
done quicker than by hand, which is of importance, as the corn plant
should be cut promptly just when it is ripe in order to obtain full
benefit of all its nutrients.

CORN BINDERS.

HISTORICAL.

The credit of inventing corn-harvesting machinery belongs to
Edmund W. Quincy, of Illinois, as he obtained the first patent on a
corn-harvesting machine in October, 1850. ‘‘Old Father Quincy,”
as he became well known thruout the country, spent more than forty
years of his life in efforts to produce a machine to pick corn, and dur-
ing most of that time he lived in abject poverty, wandering from
place to place pursuing the will-o’-the-wisp of promised assistance,
using the money tossed to him as alms to construct his crude machines
or to remedy their defects, going for days without food or shelter,
faithful to his cherished plan until the end. His machine was essen-
tially a field picker. Many other inventors worked like Quincy, on
the idea of a machine to pass over the row and pick the ears from
the stalks.

Another form of corn harvester (fig. 10) was invented in the
“eighties.” This machine cut the cornstalks and elevated them into
a wagon, which was very convenient when the fodder was to be used
for ensilage. The elevator could be removed and a binder attach-
ment put on by which the corn was bound into bundles, these being
left in the field to cure.

One of the earliest forms of corn harvesters and binders was con-
structed as a modified form of the grain binder. This machine also

“was so constructed that for the binder attachment a device might be
substituted to elevate the corn into a wagon.

The principle in corn harvesters and binders which was destined to
prevail was invented by A. S. Peck, of Geneva, Il., and patented
January 5, 1892. It consisted of a corn harvester with the two
dividers passing one on each side of a row of corn, which was cut and
carried back in a vertical position to the binder attachment by means
of chains and gathering arms. A standard twine binder was used,
set in a vertical position so as to receive the stalks and keep them in
this position until the bundle was discharged. The horses were
hitched behind the machine the same as they are on the header or

Fie. 10.—An early corn harvester.

push binder. The machine is shown in figure 11, in operation in
the field.

- The Peck patent received very little attention at first. It showed
very few elements that were new, as the vertical principle of cutting
grain had been tried and failed to give satisfaction. It was rather
a rearrangement of well-known principles used in_ harvesting
machinery than a new departure. Still it was the collection of these
principles in proper form which produced a_ successful ‘machine.
After two years’ use by the inventor and a few other persons, its
merit was recognized by one of the prominent harvester manufacturers.

In the perfection of farm implements there are usually two stages
of development. The first covers the conception of the idea and the
12211—No. 173—07——_3

making of an implement that does its work satisfactorily in the hands
of the inventor. The second stage covers the pioneer efforts to manu-
facture it and to introduce it into general use. The period from the
first invention of the corn-harvesting machine by “‘ Father Quincy”
in 1850, until 1895, may be considered as covering the first. stage of
the development of corn-harvesting machinery, im which many
machines were made that would work well in the hands of inventors;
but almost half a century was required for the designing and perfect-
ing of these machines so that they might be manufactured for general
use. During this time much capital was lost in fruitless efforts.
Since 1895 the self-binding corn harvester has had a considerable
sale. In practically all of the corn binders now built the features
of the Peck type predominate. Even the most divergent forms still
retain the general organization of parts used in the Peck machine.

Fic. 11.—Vertical corn harvester in the field.

Among the practical and successful corn binders in the market the
widest divergence from the Peck type is probably to be found in the
machine invented by John A. Stone, of Chicago. In this machine the
binder is in an almost horizontal position, instead of vertical. When
the corn is cut the stalks move a little rearward in an upright position,
and then they are tripped so that the tops fall rearward onto an
inclined deck, being euided in their fall toward the binder by curved
guide arms. The butts are pushed out of the way of the incoming
cornstalks, and are evened for a bundle by means of a butt adjuster.
A type of corn binder, which comes about halfway between those
already described, was invented by Tarrall and Maul, of Batavia,
N. Y. It is designed to occupy an inclined position over the deck
for the purpose of binding the stalks in a semiprostrate position.

19
CONSTRUCTION.

There are, therefore, three different forms of corn binder, namely,
the vertical, the horizontal, and the inclined, the latter being rather
a: blending of the two preceding types. These machines differ only
in the relative position of their elements, being composed of the same
essential parts. Binders consist essentially of the dividers, of which
previous mention has been made, and of cutting and binding devices.
(See figs. 12, 13, and 14.) A bundle carrier is usually also attached,
but this is not essential to the smooth operation of the machine.

DIVIDERS.

The dividers consist of two diverging jaws opening at the front of
the machine. The jaws begin in two points at the front, but grad-
ually widen vertically to where they join the frame of the machine,

Tic. 12.—Skelcton frame of corn binder, showing chains.

when they have a width, or rather a height, of 4 feet or more. By
an arrangement of levers the points may be raised or lowered.
Attached to each jaw are two or three traveling chains, whose purpose
it is to bring the stalks to a vertical position and carry them back to
the binding deck. The chains are placed one above the other (fig. 12).
The lower one is known as the short-corn chain, the middle one is
the conveyor chain, and the upper one is the tall-corn chain. The
middie chain passes around a sprocket wheel close to the point of the
jaws, and extends back almost to the binding deck. The upper
chain begins farther back and extends some distance over the binding
deck. This chain is meant to carry the tops of tall corn. The lower
chain is of about the same length as the upper one, begins nearer the
point of the jaw, and does not extend so far back. These chains are

supplied with fingers, which take hold of the stalks and lift them to a
vertical position as the machine advances. The jaws have such a
position relative to each other as will bring the fingers of the opposite
chains almost in touch with each other at or near the cutting blades
The chains receive their motion from the main driving mechanism

and are driven at such speed as will bring the stalks to the proper
position for cutting without shaking them too severely

===
= ==, =
(A

CUTTERS.
/|
\

The cutting arrangement
consists of a serrated knife
which passes to and fro

across two

stationary
blades, one of these being

attached to eachjaw. This
serrated knife is driven by
a pitman attached to a

weighted wheel called a
“fly wheel.”

The added

weight gives enough stored
energy to sever the toughest
stalks without shock to the
small gear wheels (fig. 13).
Attached to the rear of

the dividers and extending
around the binding deck

are several guide springs
8

MAMMA

P= (fig. 11) which keep the tall
ave SS a corn from bending over and

becoming entangled in the
binding gear

2 BINDING APPARATUS.

Fig. 13.—Frame of corn binder, showing mechanism for

driving cutter knife, gear shaft for driving chains and Just behind the knife and
binding device, and roller bearings :

thence extending back to
the bundle carrier, is the butt shoe, or butt carrier (fig. 12). This
device carries the weight of the stalks after they are cut. It is
fastened to the frame just behind the knife, but thru the rest of its
length it is adjustable vertically, so that the binding twine may be
placed at the proper place on both tall and short corn

As the stalks are cut they are carried back by the conveyor chain,
with their butts resting in the butt carrier until they reach the bind-
ing deck, where they are pushed backward by the packers, which

a » aT ; Ty 7
have such a motion as will carry them perpendicularly thru the
binding deck and parallel to it while conveying the stalks to the
knotter. ir ion 1

Their motion is more rapid than that of the chains, but

they have the advantage of yielding slightly while a bundle is being
tied. This is important, as many ears would otherwise be knocked
from the stalks by jamming the stalks behind the needle.

The needle and the knotter form the binding attachments. They
are in nearly all cases of the same pattern as are those of the grain
binders of the same makes, but are made heavier to meet the require-
ments of the work. —

The packers on these machines (fig. 14) must have such a motion as
to travel toward the back of the machine as long as they project
above the binding deck,
their travel thru the deck
being fast and of short
duration. There is one
machine on the market
which does not use pack-
ers at all, but has in-
stead several chains with
collapsing fingers. While
the bundle is being
formed, these fingers as-
sume a position perpen-
dicular to their chains,
being held so by the
guides over which they
travel. As soon, how-
ever, as the needle moves,
these guides no longer
bear against the fingers,
which collapse when pres-
sure is brought to bear
against them. This pre-
vents their jamming the

Incoming corn against
the rib of the needle Fia. 14.—Binder attachment: @, needle; bb, packers; c, knot-

: 4 : ter cam; dd, compressor hook; eee, discharge arms; f, Butt
while a bundle is being table or butt shoe; g, twine cam.

tied and avoids the break-
ing off of ears that would often occur otherwise.

When the bundle has been bound the two or three discharge arms
on the binding shaft have reached the back side of the bundle, and
by the continuous motion of the shaft the arms force the bundle off
the deck and discharge it, after which the compressor hook returns
automatically to its place and the binding shaft stops until another
bundle is formed, when the operation is repeated. Figure 14 shows
the binding mechanism and the general arrangement of the several
parts referred to.

SPECIAL FEATURES.

The parts that are adjustable by lever are the butt shoe, the
dividers, and in some machines, the binding deck and knotter and
needle. The whole frame of the machine may be raised or lowered
by means of the two worm-and-pinion arrangements, one on the
grain wheel and one attached to the main drive wheel.

In the vertical machine the binding mechanism has a vertical posi-
tion; in the horizontal machine it sits horizontally on the frame,
and in the inclined machine it is inclined.

In the horizontal machine it is necessary to extend a conveyor
chain farther back than in either of the other types, so as to bring the
tops of the stalks into a horizontal position. In this type, too, the
bundle carrier extends in a direction parallel to the length of the
machine. This arrangement is very apt to give trouble from the
butts of stalks becoming lodged in stubble or soft earth and spreading
the bundles in disorder upon the ground. This might be avoided
more or less by giving the bundle a sharp toss, thus freeing the carrier
before any part of it touches the ground. The fingers of the carrier are
sometimes made free to move backward and forward so as to prevent
the drag above referred to. On the vertical and inclined machines
there is less danger of trouble from this source, as the bundle carriers
extend across the path of the machine. The smooth operation of the
carriers depends greatly on the skill of the operator. Too many bun-
dles crowd the carrier and prevent the binding attachment ‘from
properly freeing itself, causing the leaves of the stalks in one bundle
to become wrapt about the stalks in another.

The tall-corn chains may be removed where the corn is short or of
medium height, and in clean fields of tall corn the short-corn chains
are unnecessary. In short corn the lower chain has sometimes
proven inadequate alone to properly convey the stalks to the binding
deck. By the addition of a small iron rod or spring (shown at a,
figure 12, p. 19) on each of the dividers, the choking of the binding
gear is prevented and a more nearly perfect bundle is made. <A short
iron bar has also been added on many machines to serve the same
purpose. This is usually placed in a horizontal position between
the lower and middle chains. The dividers are adjustable vertically,
allowing them to pick up corn that is lying flat upon the ground, the
lever being in reach of the driver.

To protect the mechanism from the stalks of the uncut rows, a
guide rod of hickory or other tough wood is usually attached to the
dividers and extended as far back as is necessary. It may be raised
or lowered independently of the dividers, however, so as to give pro-
tection against either tall or short corn. This bar is shown at the
left in figure 15, and the tilting lever on the right.

Badly tangled fields make the progress of one of these machines
slow, but it is remarkable with what precision the chain conveyors
right the stalks. The adjustment is accomplished by tilting the
machine forward or backward by the tilting lever, according to
whether it is desired to lower or raise the points of the dividers. As
the weight is almost evenly distributed on either side of the main
shaft, it takes but a very little power to bring the dividers into the
desired position.

There are two types of these dividers—the vertical (see fig. 11,
p. 18) and the inclined (fig. 15). For the vertical it is claimed that
little jostling is given the corn, decreasing the danger of knocking off
ears, while advocates of the inclined pattern claim to accomplish the

—

mT
|

Fig. 15.—Inclined corn binder, showing tilting lever and guide rod.

same result by allowing the stalks to recline against the inner jaw
and be carried backward between the fingers of the conveyor chain
on that side.

Owing to the great variation in height of corn, even in the same
field, the binding attachments are given great range of operation.
In some machines they are placed as high as 32 inches. On machines
of this range it is customary to have two needles, each covering half
of the variation in the position of the knotter. With such a large
range as this it is possible to tie the bundles sufficiently low without
raising the staiks any great distance, thereby reducing the work
required of the machine. In most machines the motion is taken

from the inside; in some, however, it is taken from the outside hub
of the main driver (see fig. 13, p. 20). The arrangements for reducing
friction and excluding dust from the bearings receive careful atten-
tion, as may be noted from the numerous roller bearings and brass-
bearing boxes. Gears are also protected wherever possible, to pre-
vent wear from dirt and grit. Where gears are not properly protected
and oiled there is apt to be a great loss of power, to say nothing of
the wear. When they receive careful attention, however, the power
required to move them is reduced considerably below that required
A) 5 for chain and sprocket.

\"\ The driving power is in-
creased by means of lugs
cast or riveted on the rim

i: . of the main drive (fig. 15).
i They are made of various
shapes, the object of all be-
ing to sink into the earth
in such a way as to prevent
; slipping. Tubing, angle
o\ /@ iron, and bar iron are used
almost exclusively in the
construction of the frames.
These give strength and
lightness, features which
are most essential to a per-
fect machine. The attend-
ant, from his seat on the
machine, has perfect con-
trol over all parts. The
levers at his side operate
all adjustments, and the
position of the bundle car-
rier is controlled by a foot-
lever attachment.

These machines weigh,
complete, from 1,400 to
1,800 pounds. Generally
‘speaking, those weighing in the neighborhood of 1,500 pounds have
been most successful, this weight seeming to give the proper relation
between driving power and durability.

The corn binder is used to greatest advantage in fields where the
corn is check-rowed, as it 1s possible to cut around a block, keeping
the machine constatiily | in operation.

When the corn is cut high with a corn binder the farmer experiences
considerable difficulty in getting rid of the corn stubble. In order

=
Bee ti a Pe ttt at Fon Sky aig
eS tel:

yy Ee Be ey SE a ee,

(ee

Fiqg. 16.—Corn-stubble cutter, attached to corn harvester.

to obtain a clear field and to have the cornstalks cut close to the
ground, an attachment has been invented as shown in figure 16.
This knife is attached to the underside of the machine and floats on
the ground, cutting the stalks even with the surface. The cutter (D)
has a drawing, slanting cut against spring resistance (EK), making a
clean cut. When this attachment is used the binder is usually set to
cut higher. The stubs, if cut when sappy, will decay quickly, and
are left on the ground to form humus in the soil; and the ground
may be prepared for the next crop with greater thoroness.

DRAFT. 8

The following results were obtained in draft tests of corn binders
made by the author at the Iowa State College:

Draft tests of corn binders.

The average draft on corn binders is about the same as that of a
6-foot grain binder. The corn binder should, therefore, be propelled
by three horses, the same as are required for grain binders. Draft
tests of the corn binder, with a stubble-cutter attachment, shows the
following results:

Draft of corn binder with and without stubble cutter.

Pounds.

Drie with shad blereiibenrd scene 4 gor ee sho f- SOU Ae To eete ee E 437
ID rattawthnoussrtlb ble: cuiterys eo em on - oe eee ce ee eee 420
IWTraiGEAlO MO LEICILULEE seems nee ie tae She SO aco he y¢

COST AND EFFICIENCY.

In order to obtain full information regarding the efficiency of corn
binders, the following questions were sent out to numerous farmers
using corn binders in different sections of the country:

1. How many acres of corn can one man and three horses cut per ten-hour day with
a corn binder?

2. How many acres can one man shock per day after a corn binder?

3. How many pounds of twine per acre of corn is used when using a corn binder?

4, What is the life, in years or acres cut, of a corn binder?

5. What is the total cost per acre for harvesting corn with a corn binder? (a) Cost
of machine ——. (6) Driver and team (c) Twine ‘(d) Shockers :

The average results, taken from the several hundred replies received
to this letter of inquiry, indicate that for all conditions of corn, the
average number of acres of corn cut per day with a corn binder using
three horses, is 7.73 acres. The average number of acres which one
man can shock per day after a corn binder is 3.31 acres. The average
number of pounds of twine used per acre of corn cut is 2.44. The
average life in years of corn binders is 8.17, and in acres of corn cut,
668.77. The average first cost of corn binders is $125. The average
cost of machine per acre cut, which includes price of machine, repairs,
and interest on the investment, is 29 cents per acre; the cost of driver
and team per*acre cut is 46 cents, or $3.55 per day; the cost of twine
is 30.5 cents per acre. The cost of shocking the corn after a corn
binder is 44.8 cents per acre. This gives the total cost per acre of
harvesting corn with a corn binder, $1.50.

The cost of cutting corn with the corn harvester and binder is,
therefore, the same as the cost for cutting corn by hand, and 32 cents
per acre higher than the cost of cutting with a sled harvester. This
extra cost of cutting with the corn binder over the cost of cutting
with a sled harvester may be attributed to the cost of the twine and
the interest on the investment in the higher first cost of the corn
binder. The corn binder has, however, proved a useful implement,
the advantage over the other methods mentioned being the amount
of work which can be accomplished per day and the general ease
with which the work can be done.

One disadvantage which may be credited to the corn binder is that
it knocks off more or less ears of corn, which either have to be picked
up by hand, at a cost of about 10 cents per acre, or left to waste or to
be found by the cattle after the field is cleared.

Farmers who have not sufficient corn to cut to make it profitable
to purchase machines sometimes hire the work done at a rate of 75
cents to $1 per acre for the use of the machine, the driver, and the
team. The average cost of cutting given above was 29 cents per acre
for the use of the machine, and 46 cents per acre for the driver and
team, or 75 cents per acre. The charge for hiring the work done is
only slightly above this.

THE CORN SHOCKER.

It is a curious fact that altho earlier efforts were centered upon
the construction of the corn shocker, the perfection of this machine
was delayed until after the introduction of the corn binder. In the
first machines the inventor attempted to engage the stalks by extend-
ing rods or springs in advance of the cutting knives, but this did not
prove as successful as did the dividers of the corn binder. With these
the corn could readily be brought to an erect position and thus made
into a perfect shock.

27
DESCRIPTION.

The present corn shocker was invented in 1888, and a machine was
constructed that year by A. N. Hadley. It was built with a frame
mounted on two wheels the same as the corn binder, and consisted of a
corn-gathering device—revolving reels on vertical standards, the
upper bearings of which were arranged for adjustment laterally, and
fore and aft. It had as a cutting device two circular rotating cutters
operating against each other and cutting the corn as the machine
advanced toward it.
Behind the cutting
device was a circular
rotating table 5 feet
in diameter, upon
which the corn was
collected vertically to
form a shock. On
this table were sev-
eral radial ribs, which
aided in revolving the
standing corn. In the
center of this table
was a rotating shock-
forming standard hay-
ing radial arms,
around which the corn
was collected. <A re-
volving crane was
mounted on the frame
and a rope and pulley
attached above the
shock by which it
could be lifted from
the platform and de-
posited on the ground. Fig. 17.—Corn harvester and shocker.

In 1893 a shocker
was constructed by J. M. Shively, similar in principle but somewhat
departing in its construction from the Hadley shocker in that the
cutting apparatus and the dividers were like those of the corn har-
vester, and the retaining wall surrounding the shock-forming table
was somewhat higher than that on the Hadley shocker.

The present form of shocker (fig. 17) consists essentially of the
dividers already described in connection with the corn binder, a revoly-
ing table for assembling the shock, and a crane for removing it. The
knives and fly-wheel attachment for cutting the stalks, and the

arrangements for raising or lowering the dividers, and the frame are
similar to those used on the corn binder. The table revolves in the
direction indicated by the arrow, and receives its motion from a bevel
gear driven from the main drive and meshing into a rack on the outer
edge of the table. -As the machine advances the stalks are carried
thru the opening in the guard band. They are then caught by the
spiral plates and the arms and forced around the central post. The
arms also revolve, receiving their motion thru the central pin from
a gear located just beneath the table. Their motion is somewhat
slower than that of the table. The guard or tension springs keep the
stalks firmly compressed about the central post. Sometimes the
twine is tied to one of the arms and allowed to assist in bringing the
stalks toward the center by being wound about them as the arms
revolve. This practise adds to the expense of operating the machine
and does not materially improve the character of the work. At the
outer edge are posts which support the tension springs.

When the shock is fully assembled on the table it must be tied by
hand. The shock may then be raised from the table by turning the
crank, and winding the rope about a spool. The shock must be lifted
high enough to clear the retaining wall. The tension springs are
swung aside and the crank acting on a sector gear swings the shock
free from the machine, as shown in Plate I.

The arms (fig. 17), which are held in a horizontal position by the
weight of the shock, are released the instant the rope is given slack.
This release of the arms is brought about by a unique arrangement of
a cam and pawls. . When the rope is tight owing to the weight of the
shock, the pawls are held in the grooves of the cam because the
weight is carried from the pulley. When the rope is given slack the
pawls are no longer kept from slipping out of the grooves in the cam,
the shock moves thru a small arc of a circle and drops to the
ground. The central supporting post is raised to its position on the
machine, as shown in Plate I, figure 2. The whole operation of form-
ing, tying, and setting a shock can be done in five minutes. The shocks
are somewhat smaller than those ordinarily made where corn is cut by
hand or with a binder, averaging about 100 hills per shock, but the
smaller size is necessary and makes it possible to reduce the weight of
the machine. The smaller shocks also tend to cure morerapidly. The
adjustment of the frame admits of the low cutting of the stalks. This
results in a greater weight of fodder per acre and leaves a short stubble
that is easily turned under at the spring plowing.

COST AND EFFICIENCY.

Corn shockers cost about as much as corn binders and weigh approx-
imately the same. The wear and tear on the shocker is probably not
so great as on the binder, and the former has the added advantage of

U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bul. 173, Office of Expt. Stations. Irrig. and Drain. Invest. PLATE I.

Fic. 1.—CORN SHOCKER UNLOADING THE SHOCK.

Fic. 2.—CORN SHOCKER RETURNING THE CENTRAL CORE.

: 29

requiring the work of but one man, whereas the binder requires, besides
the driver, two or three men to follow and set up the shocks. The use
of a corn shocker removes much of the hard labor of farming. Shock-
ing corn is generally considered hard work and farm hands employed
only for that purpose demand a good price for their services.

In order to obtain a comparison between the merits of corn binders
and corn shockers for harvesting corn, the following questions were
asked numerous users of corn shockers:

1. How many acres per ten-hour day can be harvested with a corn shocker?

2. What does it cost per acre to harvest corn with a corn shocker? (a) Cost of
machine ; (b) cost of man and team ; (c) cost of twine

From the replies to these questions and from personal knowledge
acquired in the field, it has been learned that the corn shocker seems
to be the machine that meets the requirements of owners of small
farms who do most of their own work. It requires a man of more abil-
ity to run a corn shocker than is required in operating a corn binder,
on account of the numerous movements that the operator has to go
thru, all at the proper time, in removing the shock from the
machine. The time of five minutes is about the average required for
making the shock, half of this time being occupied in stopping the
team, tying the top, lifting the shock, swinging the crane, releasing the
core from the shock, and returning it to the table.

Recently patents have been issued for a horsepower lifting attach-
ment for shockers, which consists of a folding tongue, to the top
pertion of which the whiffletrees are attached. To these is attached
a cable, which is wound around a drum, the other end being attached
to the lifting device. When the shock is ready to be lifted, a spring
catch is released and the horses started forward. The machine
remains stationary, but the forward movement of the horses lifts the
shock by means of the cable, from the table. When the core has
been returned to the table the horses are backed up to their former
position, and the spring catch fastens the tongue in place ready for
the forward movement of the machine. The addition of-such a
device will greatly reduce the work of the operator.

In the replies to the questions it is found that the average number
of acres of corn which can be cut per day with a corn shocker, three
horses, and one man, is 4.7 acres. The life of the corn shocker, in
years and acres cut, has not been ascertained, but as the wear and
tear is less than on a corn binder, the life of the machine ought to
be greater. Assuming that the allowance for first cost, life of machine,
and interest on investment is the same as that for the corn binder—
i. e., 29 cents per acre; allowing $3.55 per day for driver and team,
or 75 cents per acre; and estimating that the twine required per acre
cut with the shocker will not cost over 2 cents, we have a total cost
of harvesting corn with a corn shocker of $1.06 per acre. This com-

pared with the cost of $1.18 per acre for harvesting with a sled
harvester, and $1.50 per acre for corn binders or by hand, gives quite
an advantage in favor of the corn shocker.

The manual labor in harvesting corn is the least when using the
shocker.

The shock made by the corn shocker is not so easily loaded on a
wagon as is that made by a corn binder, as the individual bundles
may be loaded with a pitchfork, whereas the whole shock made with
a shocker can best be loaded at once, and this requires some form of
loading device or horsepower derrick. |

The corn binder is well adapted for cutting corn for the silo, as the
bundles are bound into convenient size to be loaded on a wagon, thus
saving considerable of the work necessitated by handling loose stalks
in the field and at the cutter. However, this saving of labor is
accomplished at the cost of twine, which remains around the bundles
for less than an hour and is a total waste when cut. A corn shocker
arranged to load the shocks on a wagon would no doubt prove the
cheapest method of harvesting corn for the silo.

The general verdict of farmers who have used both the corn binder
and the shocker is that the shocker is the preferable machine for
harvesting corn.

A CORN-SHOCK LOADER.

A loading device for handling corn shocks adds greatly to the value
of the shocker, for with it the corn can be more cheaply handled than
by the present methods. One of the first devices of this kind con-
sisted of a long pole or pipe supported on a fulcrum at the rear end
of the wagon in such a way as to give considerable leverage. The
idea was much like that of the ald well sweep with the semirotary
motion added.

An improved loading device which can be carried along with the
wagon or left in the field and driven about independently, has been
invented (Pl. II). It is mounted on four wheels and consists of an
adjustable vertical mast on which is a horizontal steel cross-arm.
On this is mounted a traveling block fitted with pulleys, thru
which a rope passes. To the end of this rope is attached a horse,
which lifts the load. For loading corn shocks, a grapple fork is
used, which is slipt under the shock. The grapple arms are closed
and with the pull of the horse the shock is lifted up on the wagon and
laid on its side or stood on end, the grapple arms being released by
simply turning the handle of the fork. This machine was originally
designed to load corn shocks, and it easily handles two shocks per
minute, and will bear a stress of 2,000 pounds. It can also be
applied to many other uses on the farm, as well as commercial uses,

U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bul. 173, Office of Expt. Stations. Irriz. and Drain. Invest. PLATE Il.

FiG. 1.—CORN-SHOCK LOADER, LOADED.

Fic. 2.—CORN-SHOCK LOADER, EMPTY.

ees
such as loading hay, manure, small grain, and other heavy objects
on the farm; and-for loading dirt, lumber, or telephone poles. Some
form of loading device will greatly reduce the hard work on the farm
and will be the means of rapidly introducing the corn shocker.

CORN PICKERS.

In the so-called ‘‘corn belt,’ where corn is the principal crop raised,
it has not been possible so far to utilize all of the cornstalks, as there
is not enough live stock to eat them. The crop is raised for the ears,
which are picked by hand at maturity. A wagon is driven along the
rows of corn and one or two men walk along the rows, husk the ears
from the stalks, and toss them into the wagon. It is estimated that
50,000,000 acres of corn are annually gathered in this way. This is
somewhat tedious work. It is usually done after the other fall work
on the farm has been finished, at a time of year when the weather is
often cold and disagreeable. It is often difficult for the farmers to
secure capable men to do this work at the time they are needed, even
at good wages. ‘To relieve them, inventors have been busy for over
fifty years trying to build and perfect a machine to pick the corn from
the stalks.

DESCRIPTION. »

The first machine for this purpose was invented by ‘‘Father
Quincy” in 1850. The picking mechanism of his machine consisted
of a revolving cylinder on which were placed four rows of projecting
metallic fingers placed at such a distance apart as to permit of the
passage of the stalks but not the ears; these were snapt off and
were received on an inclined conveyor belt which discharged them
into a spout, from which they slid into a wagon driven alongside of
the machine.

Only a short time after the Quincy patent had been issued another
one was given to William Watson, of Chicago. His machine was
somewhat more elaborate than that of Quincy in that it was provided
with a cylinder and concave designed to husk and shell the corn.
Practically all of the corn pickers consisted of rollers inclining up,
in such a way that the front end of the rollers would pass below the
lowermost ears and rake the stalk from the bottom to the top. A
ereat many devices were employed for removing the ears, such as
cutters, gathermg prongs, rotating toothed cylinders, roller and
breaker devices, parallel vibrating bars, etc.

All of the early machines were designed to be pushed from the rear
and were provided with some form of dividers to guide the corn to
the snapping devices, as shown in figure 18. The snapping-roller
type of corn picker received serious attention from manufacturers

about 1874, when the first machine of this type was invented, but it
was ten years later that it was patented. The rollers were placed in
the inclmed position for the stalks of corn to pass between them.
The end portions of the rollers where the stalks entered were provided
with bars designed to aid in snapping off the ears as the stalks past
down between the rollers during the advance of the machine. For the
remainder of their length the rollers were so constructed as to tear the
husks from the ears and continuously feed
the ears along to be finally discharged, husked,
onto a conveyor, and delivered into suit-
able receptacles. This particular machine
was thought to promise success, but when
the corn binders began to be developed and
came into use the interest in corn pickers
abated, as it was thought that with a suc-
cessful corn binder there would be no need
of corn pickers. However, the use of the corn
binder and the shocker, while quite extensive,
does not solve the corn-harvesting problem
in the purely corn-raising regions, where a
large share of the corn is still picked by hand

from the stalks as they stand in the field.
About 1902 the attention of manufacturers
was again turned to corn pickers and several
machines are now being introduced for pick-
ing corn. The corn picker as now constructed
resembles the corn binder in the construc-
tion of the main frame, drive wheels, and
dividers. It passes along the row of corn,
which is straddled by the dividers, and the
stalks after being righted by the points,
chains, and other devices, pass between a pair
of inclined, corrugated rollers that snap or
strip off the ears. The rollers are positioned
Fig. 18-A corn-picking ma. 8° that the ears fall naturally into a trough
chine. that extends along beside them. In order to
provide snapping rollers to remove the ears
and force them to fall always to the same side, yet permit free entrance
of the upright stalks at the receiving end without the necessity of auxil-
lary means to bend the stalks laterally, James E. Goodhue arranged the
snapping rollers in slightly skewed relation, by which the upright stalk
may be gradually forced to one side as the picking rolls pass along, and
the ears are broken off and directed to one side. The ears are carried
back by a traveling conveyor and either delivered to a set of husking

ataraee

iad Ve
PN

ATA

Me Mi,
Nes \eoes,
RE
LG

dd da
pane

re
7.
wr

fat
poen

PLATE III.

Irrig, and Drain. Invest.

U.S. Dept. of Agr., Bul. 173, Office of Expt. Stations.

MODERN CORN PICKER.

rolls or else, without being husked, carried by an elevator and deliv-.
ered into a wagon which is driven alongside the machine.

Another form of modern practical corn picker has the guide chains
_ with the usual prongs for straightening up the stalks. The chains
form a stalk passage extending rearward thru the machine. A rap-
idly moving chain provided with fingers is located at one side and
between the guide chains in such a position that as the machine passes
over the row the fingers engage the ears on the stalks and snap them
off. By means of a deflector the ears are directed to a receptacle
from which they are carried to the husking rollers and thence to the
wagon. The tops of the cornstalks are cut off, and by means of a
conveyor this and other trash is carried to the rear and dropt on the
ground. This machine is shown in Plate III.

OBJECTIONS AND ADVANTAGES.

The corn picker is intended to remove the ears from the stalks,
which are left in the field. Most of the machines are built on the
assumption that the stalks are valueless, and therefore they are prac-
tically destroyed. It has not been possible to construct a picker
that will not to some extent break down or tear down the stalks.
This is somewhat objectionable because, where the corn is picked by
hand, the dried corn leaves and stalks serve as roughage for cattle
during the fall and winter. The machine has, however, this advan-
tage, that the field can be picked quicker and the cattle turned in
earlier to make use of the roughage before the snow falls.

Another objectionable feature of the corn picker as compared with
the hand method of picking corn is that it shells considerable corn;
and, if the corn is lodged and tangled, more or less ears are mist by
the machine. The corn picker with the husker attachment requires
considerable motive power, at least four horses being required to pull
it. For this reason some manufacturers have dispensed with the
husking attachment and depend upon the snapping rollers for
removing most of the husks. Machines of this kind will remove from
25 to 75 per cent of the husks, depending upon the stage of maturity
of the corn, the brittleness of the stalks, and the effects of freezing and
damp weather. Where machines without the husker attachment are
used, a stationary husker may be provided at the crib, in which the
corn is husked and elevated into the corncrib.

There is a variance of opinion among the farmers as to the advisa-
bility of husking the ears clean. In the South the common practise
is to leave the husks on the ears, and it is claimed that this practise
tends to prevent injury by insects. In the North it is the common
practise to husk the ears clean before they are cribbed.

The objections offered, in reply to inquiries, to using a corn picker
which leaves the husks on the ears are that more crib room is required

for the ears; that they will serve to attract and harbor rats and mice;
that the ears will not dry out, but will be liable to mold; that the husks
interfere with the shelling; that, while for feeding cattle and hogs the
husks will be advantageous as they will serve as a roughage, horses
will toss the ears in trying to remove the husks, and thus lose ear and
all. For selling purposes the corn needs to be husked clean in order
to command the best market price.

The economic side of corn pickers may be profitably considered.
The corn picker should last about as long as the corn binder, or 8.17
years, and pick about the same number of acres per day as can be
harvested with a corn binder, or 7.73 acres. The first cost of the
machine is, however, practically twice that of the corn binder, or on
an average, $250. This makes the cost of machine, interest on the
investment, and repairs equal to 58 cents per acre. The cost of
driver and team is $3.55 per day, or 46 cents per acre. There is
required two wagons with teams to remove the corn from the machine
and deliver it into the crib, which, at $3 per day for each, costs $0.77
per acre, or a total cost of $1.81 per acre for picking corn with a corn
picker.

To obtain a comparison between the machine and the hand meth-
ods of picking corn, the following questions were asked numerous
farmers:

What is the average yield of corn per acre in your vicinity?

What does it cost per bushel, including board of men, to pick corn by hand from
the field?

How many bushels of corn per day does the average man pick?

From the 300 replies received to these questions it has been learned
that the average yield is 44 bushels per acre; that the average cost
per bushel for picking corn by hand is 34 cents, and that the average
man picks 59 bushels of corn per day. This yield is considerably
above the average given in the crop reports of the United States
Department of Agriculture, but it represents the yield of corn in
States where pickers are used. Considering now that the number of
acres which the corn picker can cover per day is 7.73, this would, for
the average yield, be 341 bushels of corn per day. It would require
the time of 5.8 men to do the same work in the same time by hand as is
done with the machine, at a cost of $11.93 for labor, but in addition
to the wages of the men there is need of a team and wagon for every
two men who pick corn by hand to haul the corn to the crib. These
teams are worth at the very least $1 each per day, or three teams for
the 7.73 acres would cost $3. The total cost for picking the same
number of acres of corn by hand as can be picked with a corn picker,
per day, would be $14.93, or $1.93 per acre, as compared with $1.81
per acre for machine picking. While the saving effected with the
corn picker is not large, the use of a machine-makes the farmer more

independent of the labor market, as the work may be done without
hiring extra men at a time when they are hard to secure. But the
advantage of hand over machine picking in the removal of the husks
should not be overlooked. .

The corn picker is still an experimental machine. There are a num-
ber of problems to solve before a wholly efficient picker will be pro-
duced. The advisability of a farmer purchasing a corn picker is a
question which each farmer should decide for himself. He may
safely follow this general rule in the purchase of farm machinery and
implements of all kinds: A machine newly put on the market, no mat-
ter how promising, should not be purchased by a farmer on ordinary
terms, because, even with the greatest care on the part of the manu-
facturer in designing and constructing the machine, weak points in
operation and construction are bound to develop, which it will take
the manufacturer several years to overcome. Not until the machine
has been perfected should the farmer purchase it. It is best to allow
the manufacturer to do his own experimenting. If special arrange-
ment is made whereby the farmer is compensated for aiding the
manufacturer in developing the machine, that is a different matter.

ECONOMY OF CORN-HARVESTING MACHINERY.

The benefits to the farmer of using modern corn-harvesting machin-
ery have been pointed out, but a question as to when these machines
are really profitable should also be considered by the successful far-
mer, viz, how many acres of corn must a man have to harvest each
year in order to make it a profitable investment for him to purchase
a corn harvester or corn picker?

We have found that the average life of the corn binder is 8.17 years,
and the cost $125. If aman has only 20 acres of corn to cut per year,
the cost for the use of the binder for each year would be $15.30. To
this should be added $7.20 for interest, making the total annual cost
of the machine $22.50. Other expenses for cutting the 20 acres of
corn, according to the previous averages derived, would be $9.20 for
team and driver, $6.10 for twine, and $8.96 for shockers; or a total
cost for cutting 20 acres of corn with a corn binder of $46.76, or $2.34
per acre. We have seen that the work may be done by hand for $1.50
per acre, and that by hiring a neighbor’s team and binder at 75 cents
per acre, the work may also be done for $1.50 per acre. We may
then conclude that a farmer who has only 20 acres of corn to cut per
year and does not intend to cut any for his neighbors would lose
money by purchasing a corn binder.

If a farmer has 30 acres of corn to cut per year, the annual cost of
the machine, including interest, would be 75 cents per acre. It will
require a cut of at least 80 acres per year before the farmer can prop-
erly estimate the cost per acre for the use of the machine to be 29

cents, as already given. It may, therefore, be concluded as a general
proposition that unless this number of acres is available for cutting
each year, the investment in a corn binder is not profitable.

These estimates may not be exactly fair, because if the corn binder
cuts but 20 acres per year, the life of the machine would probably be
considerably longer than eight years. This would in a large measure
depend upon the care the machine received. If left outdoors the
wear and tear on the machine when not in use would be more than
when used. However, with proper care it would last longer, and
there is no doubt that in general half the money which our farmers
spend for implements could be saved if they gave their implements
better care when in use, and when not in use protected them in an
implement shed from wind, rain, sunshine, and farm animals.

In the same way we may determine when it is advisable to use a
corn picker. The price of these machines ranges from $200 to $325,
but if we take $250 as the average price and the average life of the
machine and acreage cut as previously noted, the cost per year for
the use of the machine would be $30.59, and interest on the invest-
ment would be $15. To this should be added about $5 per year for
repairs, or a total of $50.59 per year for the use of the machine. In
order to make this machine a profitable investment it should husk
at least 87 acres of corn each season. Circumstances may alter cases
and different conditions change the problem, but in general it is
better not to invest in expensive implements unless there is sufficient
work in sight to make them profitable.

CUTTING AND SHREDDING MACHINES.

The corn picker should be considered as a temporary machine for
emergency use only until such a time as the American farmers will
be able to utilize all of the food products grown on their farms. In
many instances the great increase in the value of land has brought
the farmers to realize that unless more scientific methods of agri-
culture are adopted and the wastes from the farms stopt, they are
not going to realize proper interest on their investments in their farm
land and equipment.

One of the serious wastes on the farm in the past has been the
neglect of the use of the cornstalks. Thru the efforts of experiment
stations the losses from this source have been determined and their
enormity pointed out to the farmers. The best method of reducing
these losses to a minimum has been found to be thru the use of the
silo. It is not within the sphere of this bulletin to go into the details
of the advantages of silos or of their methods of construction, but to
describe some of the machines used in the preparation of the corn-
stalks for the silo.

The implements used for harvesting the corn plant have been
described. An important matter to be decided in preserving the
green-corn fodder in the silo is whether the corn plants are to be put
into the silo whole or cut up into fine particles. The advocates of
whole-corn silage claim that there will be smaller losses from fer-
- mentation with whole than with cut silage. No direct proof is, how-
ever, at hand, and the practise followed must be decided by the
greater ease of handling the fodder as silage and the relative economy
of one system or the other in the opinion of each farmer. The
majority of farmers follow the practise of running the corn thru a
cutting or shredding machine.

The feed and ensilage cutters used for cutting or shredding corn
fodder for the silo and feed for other purposes are of various sizes,
from the small hand machine shown in figure 19 to the large power-
driven machine provided with self-feeder and blower attachment, as
shown in figure 20. The term ‘‘fod-
der shredder” is sometimes errone-
ously applied to the husker and
shredder. There is considerable dif-
ference between the two machines.
The fodder shredder is similar to the
ensilage cutter, being provided with
feed rollers of large diameter between
which the entire corn plant, ears and
all, may pass to be converted into
fodder or ensilage, as the case may
be; or it can be used to prepare corn-’
stalks for the silo or for fodder after |
the corn has been husked by hand. eietige Mee hridrical tasd-cutter:

It differs from the ensilage cutter in

that it is provided with a shredder head, as shown in figure 21, which
may be constructed in various ways, but consists usually of a set of saw
blades so arranged that they will shred the fodder into fine particles,
whereas the cutter head is fitted with knives which cut the fodder
into lengths ranging from one-fourth inch to 2 inches. These cutting
devices are usually interchangeable, so that the user can put into the
same machine either a cutter head or a shredder head, as best suits
his needs or preference.

These machines are provided with safety devices so arranged that
the feed rolls can be stopt and started at will while the machine is
running. This is quite an advantage, as it prevents the sacrifice
of fingers, hands, and even of arms. They are also provided with
friction safety balance wheels and devices for changing the length of
the cut of fodder. .

No accurate information is at hand as to the difference in power
required for shredding and for cutting a certain number of tons of
fodder corn. It is generally conceded that the shredder head requires
considerable more power and must run at a higher speed than the
cutter, but the recent improvements in shredder heads have mate-
rially reduced their necessary speed. Machines of great capacity are
now on the market shredding as high as 25 tons of fodder per hour.
In the better forms of shredders the feed rollers are speeded at about
160 revolutions per minute, while the cutter heads are usually run at
from 600 to 700 revolutions per minute, and shredder heads at about
1,000 revolutions per minute. The power required to run the
machines is from 12 to 15 horsepower.

Fia. 20.—Self-feeding ensilage cutter with blower.

The ensilage cutters and shredders were at first provided with
swivel carriers driven from bottom, which, by means of metal buckets
fastened to a chain, elevated the fodder into the silo or mow. Now,
however, most of the larger machines are provided with blowers,
which consist of a steel fan inclosed in a case, and a galvanized iron
pipe usually 10 inches in diameter, extending to the silo or the mow.
The fan is sometimes mounted on the main shaft of the cutter or shred-
der head and is thus driven by the same belt that furnishes power to
the machine. The current of air created by the fan forces the fodder
into the place desired. For green silage it is necessary to carry the
pipe nearly perpendicular to the height of the silo window and to put
an elbow on the top to convey the fodder into the silo. The reason
for this is that when the pipe is perpendicular, or nearly so, the force
of the wind created by the fan works directly against the force of

gravity, which acts upon the silage, whereas when the pipe is slanting
the silage tends to collect at the lower side of the pipe and the wind
pressure tends to pass over the silage, thus causing clogging in the
pipe.

One of the earliest attempts to turn the stalk into feed in any other
than its natural condition, or simply to cut it into short lengths by
means of a cutting machine, is embodied in a machine patented in
1872, which comprised two parallel gangs of saw-like cutters, between
which the stalk is cut into short pieces.

Fig. 21.—Corn shredder.

The modern shredder was first suggested in 1881, as appears from
a patent granted to Messrs. Behringer, Stouffer, and Potts, of Penn-
sylvania. This consisted of two rollers between which the cornstalks
were fed to a cylinder provided with knives that slit the stalk and
beaters which pounded it, rendering it soft and pliable.

HUSKERS AND SHREDDERS.
SIMPLE HUSKING DEVICES.

One of the earliest devices used for husking corn was the husking
peg. Several patterns of this are in common use. There are also
other aids to corn husking made in the form of gloves, with projecting
points or pegs. Equipped with such a glove the man passes along
the rows, husks the ears by tearing off the husks and snapping the
stems, and tosses them into the wagon which is drawn alongside.
Such husking pegs and gloves are also used in husking corn from the
shock.

The early colonists did not remove the husks from the ears immedi-
ately upon bringing the corn from the fields. They usually snapt
the ears from the stalks without removing the husks. They held
that it was better to allow the husks to remain on the ears for pro-
tection against frost and moisture. Later in the season the crops were
often husked by husking parties assembled at the various farms in their
respective communities during the autumn days and early evenings;
and their work was always followed by some form of merrymaking,
as a dance or a “‘play party,” which often extended into the early
morning hours. The corn was stored in high cribs erected at con-
venient points near the other farm buildings.

EARLIER MECHANICAL HUSKERS.

The first patent on a corn husker was issued in 1837. The machine
comprises essentially a pair of roughened parallel rollers designed to
tear off the husks. This machine represents one of the earliest
attempts to utilize machinery for preparing the corn crop for the
market. It assumes that the ear shall be plucked from the stalks
by hand.

In 1866 a New York concern began the manufacture of a husker
having a single snapping rol] made of hardwood. Another roller set
with stiff knives located just behind the hardwood roller, cut the
stalk into short lengths. The ears of corn as they were broken off
by the snapping roll fell down upon the husking rolls. These were
about 2 inches in diameter and rotated toward each other. A small
revolving shaft set with spikes and located directly above the line of
contact of the husking rolls, caused the ears to revolve so as to
present all of the husks to the action of the husking machine.

Another form of husker consisted of a snapping roll much the same
as that described above, and several husking rolls whose effective-
ness depended upon the action of rubber aprons. These past over
each roller like belts over a pulley, and tended to draw the husks in
with them. Later, about 1880, the Phillips and Jones machines
added to this idea by putting on a pair of snapping rolls. These
were the first really successful huskers.

COMBINED HUSKERS AND SHREDDERS.

Thus far no machine had been produced designed to perform more
than one operation on the stalks, except some of the unsuccessful
and later experimental harvester types designed to pick and husk
the ears, as previously described. Between 1880 and 1890 a great
deal of attention was given to thrashing corn. This practise so bat-
tered the stalk as to make every part of it available as a cattle food.
Fodder cutters had been in use for many years, yet this method of
preparing corn fodder left the fibrous part of the stalk in a tough,

woody condition which the cattle did not much relish. The bruising
and shredding action of the thrasher put the stalk in a more palatable
form. The repeated shortages and failures of the hay crop during
the decade 1880-90, together with the results of attempts at thrash-
ing corn led to the invention of the combined husker and shredder,
which takes the stalks with the ears on them, removes the ears,
husks them, and prepares the stalks for feeding. A combined husker
and shredder patented by J. F. Hurd, of Minnesota, in 1890, appli-
cation having been filed in 1887, is one of the earliest of the shredder
type.

There are at this time many different makes of this machine in the
market. They are of various designs and are frequently made so as
to be fitted with exchangeable cutter and shredder heads. The
general construction of all machines of this class is very much the
same, however. Some are rather complicated in their construction

PNEUMATIC STACHER

Fig. 22.—Skeleton of husker and shredder.

while others are very elementary. A discussion of one of the more
complicated will serve to explain the general operation of all. By
referring to figure 22 the construction will be easily understood.

The stalks are first fed to the snapping rolls, where the ears are
broken from them. The stalks are driven forward by the snapping
rolls until they meet the shredder head, where they are cut to shreds
by knives of special forms shown in figure 23. The shredded parts
of the stalk fall upon a vibrating carrier whose motion is comple-
mented by the action of arms. The shreds fall from this carrier into
the blast from the fodder blower, which carries them up thru the
stacker.

The ears which are broken from the stalks by the snapping rolls
drop upon the husking rolls where the husks are torn from them.
The husked ears gradually descend along the inclined husking rolls
until they finally fall upon an elevator which carries them to the bin
or other place provided for them.

49 ~

The husks fall upon a conveyor chain which drags them back to the
fodder blower, where they join the shreds from the stalk. The loose
grain falls from the vibrating carrier and husk conveyor upon a screen.
As it falls it is met by a mild blast which removes the dust from it.
This grain is then collected in a trough or chute and is driven by means
of a screw conveyor to one side of the machine.

This machine combines in its construction many elements used in
earlier machines, both huskers and fodder cutters. The snapping
rolls and husking pegs are both ideas found in machines described in
preceding paragraphs, while the shredder heads are not greatly dif-
ferent from those of the fodder cutters of earlier design. The blower

ETD

fq. 23.--Forms of shredder heads.

and cleaning and carrying devices are very much like those of the
thrasher. Self-feeding and safety devices are now largely used as a
protection against the danger of having one’s hand or arm caught in
the mechanism (fig. 24). Where the self-feeder is used, a revolving
band cutter is commonly placed a little ahead of the snapping rolls.

The superior convenience of having the stalks bound into bundles
is most evident where these machines are used. In bundles the
stalks keep straight and thus avoid the delay caused by having them
come to the machine in a disordered condition. There is also less
danger of choking the machine. Plate IV shows a husker and shred-
der run by a gasoline engine.

ANISNA ANITOSV5 Ag NOY Y3aq00SYHS GNV YaysSNH

U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bul. 173, Office of Expt. Stations. Irrig. and Drain. Invest. PLATE IV.

mm We
ml
mT

il iY

43
COST OF PREPARING CORN FODDER.

The cost of preparing corn fodder by the various methods and with
the different machines depends upon a great many variable factors.
It depends upon the yield of corn per acre, upon the method of har-
vesting, upon the distance the fodder is to be hauled, the size and
efficiency of the working force; the size, capacity, and speed of the
machine, and the motive power used.

COST OF FILLING THE SILO.

In cutting corn for ensilage we have the records kept by several
experiment stations, as to cost, a few of which are here given.

An accurate record was kept of the cost of har vesting and storing
45 tons put into the silo in three
days. The force employed was as
follows: Portable engine, power
cutter, one two-mule cart with
mules, one single cart with mule,
one mule hauling fuel and water for
engine, one foreman, one engineer
and fireman, two drivers, three corn
cutters, two menatcutting machine,
one man packing in silo, one boy
helper on water cart.

The items of cost were these: Hire
of engine and engineer, three days,
at $4 per day, $12; fuel, $3; teams
and manual labor in all, $46.40;
putting cover and weights on: silo,
$3; total, $64.40, or $1.43 per ton.
It was estimated that the tangled
condition of the corn in the field
fully doubled the labor of cutting apm etry eee
and loading it, and had the ensilage cutter been larger, the same engine
and fuel could have doubled the quantity cut per day. It is easy to
see how these improvements might have reduced the cost to $1 per
ton for storing.

eo head
Sees

Sraqpping Folls4

Husking Follst

Cost of harvesting and filling silo. b

Capacity of machine, Per lshounrd nyse eee tons. - 50
Six men in field cutting and loading, at SRUGS ER: 2 Ga oo See aN re $7.98
weer io tRM De AMMIMN O'S Gos ec tee 4.00
‘CQ saveugo ln ineie: Se ER ae ee ne a a ee a 1.33
wo meniecdine machine,at $l.38-.605..05.s2 202i 02.0. ee oe 2. 66
Two men packing 3 oi. te ig. AGS ea Ge oes ate Pe a 2. 66
ete mb, GO eUiey Siapl a. ce <1 oe oe Che owes Os ee 1.33
eemeginee rone-tmith: term. at $52.5. .-.. of. fe Je ee, 1. 60

Meenonlervesiine OU L008)... 52 csi 2... cs.l2 022. e..- 21.56

ON UE) (2 0) aS Se eg 43

o Maryland Sta. Rpt. 1889, p. ). 103. b Minnesota Sta, Bul. 2, p. 7.

Professor King found that the average cost of cutting and putting
corn into the silo, on a number of Wisconsin farms, was 58.8 cents per
ton.@

Professor Georgeson found that it cost 62.3 cents, 70.9 cents, and
50.8 cents for three different silos, or an average of 61.3 cents, per
ton of silage put up.?

Mr. T. L. Allen, Kinsman, Ohio, says:

With modern machinery and good management, corn can be put into the silo at 35 to
40 cents per ton. Indeed, with our large machinery and strong force of men we have
put it in the silo for less than 30 cents.

With the larger and improved ensilage cutters having self-feeders
and blowers, and the superior methods in handling the corn, it is safe
to say that corn may be harvested and put into the'silo in the form of
silage, at an average cost of 50 cents per ton.

Cost OF SHREDDED FODDER.

The cost of making the cornstalk into shredded fodder after it has
been, allowed to cure in the field varies in the same way as that of
preparing silage. We may, however, gather some ideas of the value
of the machines used for this purpose.

We have already learned the cost of cutting the corn and putting
it into shocks, and also that the average cost per bushel of husking
corn from the shock in the fields is 5.3 cents per bushel, or at an average
of 44 bushels per acre, the cost will be $2.33 per acre. To this should
be added about 35 cents per acre for hauling the ears to the crib, or a
total of $2.68 per acre for husking the corn by hand, and this leaves
the stover in the field. If the stalks are hauled to the feed lot it wiil
involve an additional cost. When huskers and shredders are used for
husking the corn and shredding the fodder, the farmer will have to
decide the question as to what method of doing the work he desires
to employ. There are machines on the market which will husk but
100 bushels per day, and there are those which will husk 1,000 bushels
per day. The smaller ones are for the farmer who desires to do his
own work.

With the general introduction of the gasoline engine on the farm,
a small individual outfit (Pl. IV) is very desirable. With such an
outfit the farmer may do his work at his convenience as he needs the
corn and the fodder, and may also do some work for neighbors,
which will aid in paying for the machine. It requires one man to
feed; one to look after the engine, shredder, and the corn in the
wagon; one man in the mow to remove the fodder, one to unload the
wagons, two teams, and one loader in the field. Six gallons of gaso-
line will supply the fuel for a ten-hour run. The computed cost
would be:

aF, W. Woll, Book on Silage, p. 118. b Kansas Sta. Bul. 48, p. 37.

Cost of shredding corn.

Use of engine and shredder and repairs, per day.........-.------ $1. 00
Piversipar done wUeaCie ee Se a 32 oct e Seek ee ee 7.50
wonearns<lunborcuCh= separa MEENA Tes Oe ec eee ee SS 6.00
Power, 6 gallons of gasoline, at 15 cents per gallon............-..- . 90

PEO el COMGUTIBERO My lene Str S 2 eek Ne ae ioe ae oS 15. 40

From experiments conducted by the author with the above outfit,
it was found that the number of bushels husked per hour varied
considerably with conditions, but that the average was 18 bushels,
or 180 bushels per day. This, at the average yield of corn per acre
previously derived, would be equal to 4 acres per day. To husk 180
bushels by hand and put it in the crib would cost $10.96. This would
leave a cost of $4.44 for 4 acres of corn fodder shredded and delivered
inthe mow. The average yield of shredded fodder is 2 tons per acre.
This would give a cost of 55 cents per ton for hauling the fodder from
the field, shredding it, and placing it in the barn ready to feed. When
corn has been husked in the field and the farmer wishes the fodder
shredded, it costs him about $1.50 per acre for shredding the fodder
by machine.

With large machines the work of husking and shredding corn is
usually custom work. The owner of the machine furnishes the
shredder and engine, with two men, charging the farmer from 4 to 5
cents per bushel for this work. The farmer will have to furnish the
fuel and the teams, as well as the balance of the help to run the
machine. These large machines require from 6 to 8 teams and 20 to
25 men for full operation. The large machine, while it does the
work quickly, has the disadvantage of requiring a large crew of men
and teams, and if anything goes wrong with either engine or shredder,
this force is idle at the expense of the farmer until the machine is
repaired.

From some investigations conducted by sending out letters of
inquiry from the Iowa Experiment Station to all parts of the State,
the following results were obtained:

From the entire number of reports received, the average cost of machines for shred-
ding was $1.55 per acre; the cost of fuel was 31.4 cents; and the total cost of shredding,
per acre, varied from $2.45 to $6.65. This is a wide range, but the conditions under
~ which the shredding was done varied correspondingly according to the distance hauled,
yield of stover per acre, kind and size of machine used, and work required in moving
the outfit; also as to physical conditions of the fodder and accidents with machine.

The average cost of shredding 1,600 acres was found to be $4.41 per acre, and this is
believed to be a fair average under ordinary conditions.

The estimate of yield of corn per acre in the above case was 57.25
bushels, which is rather high even for Iowa; the yield of fodder, 2 tons
per acre, and the cost of husking in the field, 5 cents per bushel.
At these figures the cost of shredding the fodder would be 77 cents
per ton.

46
SUMMARY.

The following table summarizes the data obtained as to the cost
and value of corn-harvesting machines:

Summary of data regarding corn-harvesting machinery and its use.

AVERAGE DATA FOR HARVESTING BY HAND.

Costiofimplement essen ose seek eee eee Ceri om eee aioe ee $1.

Number of hrllsipershocks 2.7 2225 = 2 tree ue eee en eee ae ee oe 160. -

Acres man WarvestSpenday:. ee seo -ceer bee ear ieeeeiae ween ene os 1.47 acres.

Costrotienthing and: shoe ki non: sates an ae cee 9 ya eee eee $0.065 per shock; $1.50 per acre.

AVERAGE DATA FOR HARVESTING WITH SLED HARVESTER.

Cost of implement. -.-....-- SPR aes Si reid 1 os RES eRe ne RISE $5 to $50.
Niiber of hillsipershoelkies sec tS. Js suse ee sain ite Soe eee eas 144.

Acres 2men and 1 horse harvest per day--..-------.-------22-.----2--- 4.67 acres.
Costioticuttiing amaishorikin oe Ween eet eran Se eet toe eee ei he $1.18 per acre.

AVERAGE DATA FOR HARVESTING WITH CORN BINDER.

Costiofiumplements 236. cesses 20-- ee oe Sarsrisine alas satarate yy aa eee = casts $125.

Ibifein years oracres Cut-< A 22-252. ---- ne CREA e A ROR Oe ra eeroe sae 8.17 years; 669 acres.
Acres cut periday by.) man ands horses... 2 2. go oe eee eee ee 7.73 acres.
Acres*shocked per day, man. 25... 2-22 Se Se eo aces eect 3.31 acres.
Costotcutting andishockimp.s 422732 oe eeoe seein see ate esse $1.50 per acre.

AVERAGE DATA FOR HARVESTING WITH CORN SHOCKER.

Cost ofimiplement she 22s acs ee eee io aes see a conae ee eee $125.

Number ofhillsperishocks: bes sse 8). sdk cece ce sceste es mascara 100.

Shocks or acres 1 man and 3 horses harvest per day...-.-..------------ 151 shocks; 4.67 acres.
Cost of cutting and shocking.-..-.- Ere cite rete Se ate tate See tse See eS $1.06 per acre.

Cost per bushel of picking and husking corn.

Cents. Cents.
By hand from fields. s sce see ee Se 3.5 | Additional cost of team for cribbing... .. 0.79
Additional cost of team for cribbing. - - .-- 1.0.) By corn picker'from field: -_=__ -— 2-22 -- = 4.1
Byehand irom SOC Kes sees cee eee 5.3 | By husker and shredder from shock. -.-- 4.5
Cost per acre of husking corn and preparing fodder.
Sled. | y. E
By hand. aie. Binder. | Shocker.
Citttingefandishockingicornt a eeetees +e esse eae ee $1.50 $1.18 $1.50 $1. 06
BUSkins Out Otshock by, baie aco een tare none eee 2.68 2268.4) 53 Sees clk eee eee
Husking-and shredding bymachines 9 i 7<ea-l ease ene ee ee eel ee eee 4. 41 4. 41
Haulingvand shredding fodderi. = - 222 - tose - ase eae eee ae 2.50 2200822. S22 Soe eee ees
ComparxrativecOStes sateen sone ee cea cee ee eee 6. 68 6. 36 5.91 5.47

Comparative returns per acre of husking corn from. the field, of cutting and feeding from
shock, and of cutting and shredding by the various methods.

chines. | chines. chines. jchines.

Tons |
mtalks lett standing = 2-2. tt. cons |- oe a Wer@OROo w= = sour | Laney Soe [ee sees $17.93 | $17.81 |......-
Cut, and stalks fed whole. ..-.- 2) $4.00 8.00 | $3.82 | $3.82 | $4.26 | 23.18 | 23.50 | $23.62
Cut, and stalks shredded -..... 2 6.00 | 12.00} 5.32 6.09 | 7.09 | 24.68 | 25.45 | 26.45

The net value of the crop is found to be $17.93 for husking by hand
and leaving the stalks standing in the field. This is obtained by adding
to the net value of the corn 55 cents per acre for the stalks and sub-
tracting the cost of husking by hand.

By allowing 25 cents per acre as the value of the fodder in field
where corn picker is used, and adding this to the net value of the corn
and subtracting $1.80 per acre for picking with the machine, we
derive the net value of the crop of $17.81 for this method of harvest-
ing, which indicates a small loss per acre as a result of using the corn
picker.

The net value of the crop by feeding the stalks whole is obtained
by taking the total value of the corn and fodder and subtracting the
costs of cutting and husking by hand, cutting with sled harvester and
husking by hand, and cutting with corn shocker and husking by hand.

The net value of the crop by utilizing the fodder in the shredded
form is obtained by assuming a greater value of shredded fodder over
whole cornstalks of 33 per cent, adding this value of the fodder to the
value of the corn and subtracting the various costs of cutting, husking,
and shredding the corn by the various hand and machine methods.

CONCLUSIONS.

The. best way to preserve the greatest quantity of food materials of
the original corn fodder for feeding of farm animals is by means of the
corn harvester, ensilage cutter, and the silo. The cost of placing 1
acre of corn in the silo is about the same as that of an acre of cured
fodder.

The farmer who would secure the full value of his corn crop should
secure the fodder with as much care as he gives his clover hay, har-

vesting it at the proper period, and not allowing it to become ruined
by rain or frost. By the use of the proper machinery for harvesting
the corn crop, the farmer may increase the net income from his crop
$8.72 per acre over hand methods of harvesting the ears and wasting
the stalks and still allow full price for the use of the different machines.

There is a limit beyond which it is not profitable for a farmer to
invest in corn-harvesting machinery, and the amount of work to be
done by the machine each year should be carefully considered before
a purchase is made.

cals
7

rea)
a :
ve

7 A ae 6
ae ah ori ee
: Bp). 0 che ey t ; ;
rv) af ei i
‘ CP
27 ‘
lie 5
Li 5 ¥
aed 7 f =
u é
.
‘
cs
1
t S
ie
*
.

Se Ramet

LIBRARY OF CONGRES

iil

00027587604

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Corn-harvesting machinery"

See other formats