UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BENJ. IDE WHEELER, President COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE thomas forsyth hunt, dean and director ___„_. _ v H. E. VAN NORMAN, Vice- Director and Dean BtRlxELtY University Farm School CIRCULAR No. 152 June, 1916 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE BULK HANDLING OF GRAIN FOR CALIFORNIA By B. H. CROCHERON and C. J. WILLIAMS The method of handling grain in California has not changed in the last tAventy-five years, despite the change in shipping conditions. As yet, practically all grain is sacked in the field and is so handled and shipped. The present agitation for the bulk-handling of grain is not the first time that the question has been broached in California. Some twenty- five or thirty years ago, when California was a great wheat-exporting state, the millers attempted to bring about a change from the sack to the bulk system of handling grain. At that time practically all grain exported from California was shipped in sailing vessels going through the Straits of Magellan. Because of the length and tempestuousness of the voyage, there was great danger of the shifting of the cargo with the ultimate loss of the ship. When a ship carrying bulk grain lists, thus displacing the center of gravity, the cargo shifts with it, unless special devices are provided. Due to the shifting of their cargoes, several ships carrying bulk grain were lost en route to England. On account of the great risk, insurance agents refused to insure ships or their bulk cargoes, and as a result bulk-cargo shipping was ended. Today, however, shipping conditions have changed. There are now few sailing vessels leaving our harbors, these having been replaced by modern steamers which are faster, safer and more reliable. Perhaps the greatest change, however, is that the route has been greatly short- ened. It formerly required seventy-five days for a steamship to travel from San Francisco to Liverpool around South America. Today, with the use of the Panama Canal, the voyage can be made in thirty-five days, and by so doing practically all of the dangerous storm zone is eliminated. The change in shipping facilities and the shortening of the route to the markets of Europe has made bulk-shipping as practical from our western ports as from any other ports in the world. Since the last great agitation for the bulk-handling of grain, an enormous change has also been wrought in the grain production of California. Formerly wheat was the great grain crop ; now barley has, to a large degree, taken its place in production. Formerly wheat was exported in large quantities; now wheat of higher gluten content is imported from the middle West to blend with our California wheats in order to improve the baking quality in manufactured flour. Barley, however, is exported, and therefore the export situation chiefly con- cerns itself with the handling of barley, either by the present sack method or by the proposed plan of bulk grain. But handling conditions which applied to wheat may not apply with equal force to barley. Brewers buy barley largely on its physical appearance, rather than upon its chemical composition; thus bright, clear barley is valued at a higher price than discolored grain, even though the latter may have as good qualities for brewing. The custom of this trade, as in many other trades, must have a determinant effect upon the plan of handling the grain. Thus, the kind of grain grown as well as the destination of the grain, whether for home or foreign consumption, has an important bearing upon the way in which it may best be handled in this state. Grain-Shipping Conditions of the World. The large wheat-producing countries of the world are today either handling their grain in bulk or changing over to the bulk system. Russia, which is one of the oldest grain exporting countries, not only handles all of her grain in bulk on the mainland, but also exports most of her foreign shipments in bulk cargoes. Australia, which is situated further than California from the markets of the world and which has been handling and shipping her grain in sacks for as many years as California, is now maturing plans by which the government will build elevators so that farmers may ship their grain by the cheaper bulk method. In Argentina, the government is making arrangements to change their system of handling wheat from the sack to the bulk method. These changes are there made possible through the use of modern steamships instead of the less reliable sailing vessels. On this continent, Canada has recently done away with the use of sacks. Practically all of the Canadian wheat is transported in bulk through the country elevators, most of which are "farmers' co-opera- tive," to the large terminal elevators built by the Dominion govern- ment and the great railroads. Most of the Canadian grain is exported from the Atlantic coast. There have been several elevators built in Washington and Oregon during the last few years. The Port of Seattle has just completed the construction of a 500,000-bushel elevator which is equipped for handling both sacked and bulk grain. At present about 10 per cent of the grain of Washington and Oregon is handled in bulk. Almost all the United States handles and ships grain by bulk. In all the states east of the Rocky Mountains, the use of sacks in the manner common to California has never been known. Some few of the small farmers handle their grain in sacks, but this is not general. When used at all, sacks are of cotton and of a size larger than ours. Such sacks are used only in handling the grain on the farm and in transporting it to the local elevators, where the sacks are emptied and carried back to the farm to be refilled. All grain from the North Atlantic Coast to the Gulf is shipped in bulk on the steamers. The risk is taken by the ship-owners, or the insurance companies are paid to do so. California Grain Distribution The amount of barley exported from the Port of San Francisco has been steadily increasing for many years until 1914. In 1915 a slight decrease was experienced, due to war conditions. It is estimated that the home consumption of barley is about 30,000 tons per month or 7,200,000 centrals per year. This is about one-third of the barley produced in California, while two-thirds is shipped elsewhere. Changes Made Necessary by a Bulk-Handling System. In California grain is generally harvested by the combined har- vester which, traveling by animal or tractor power, heads the standing grain, threshes it and spouts it into sacks which are then sewn and left in the field. Only in a few sections of California is grain harvested with a binder and later threshed. The sacks from the harvester often remain where they are thrown for some days or weeks; later they are gathered into a pile under a tree or in a fence corner, where they remain for some time. Still later, at a convenient time, the sacks are hauled to a local warehouse on a railroad or steamboat line, from whence they take their course onward to a central warehouse. There the sacks are opened, the grain cleaned, the broken sacks replaced, the grain again sacked and then shipped to its destination in Europe or elsewhere. Changing from the sacked to the bulk method of handling would entail : (la) Equipping the combined harvesters in use with a spouting apparatus whereby grain from the harvester would be spouted directly into a tight wagon box, or (lb) equipping the combined harvesters in use with a bin on the side which would hold approximately one wagon load of grain, to be emptied into wagons as they pull alongside, or (lc) changing from the combined harvester to the self-binder. It would also entail on the farm: (2) the erection of grain bins or small tank elevators for storage of bulk grain until it is desired to transport the grain by wagon to the railroad. In places where farms are close to the railroad such bins or tanks may not be necessary. At the local railroad or water-shipping point where grain is received or shipped, there would be required: (3a) the erection of local elevators, or (36) the refitting of existing warehouses to handle grain in bulk by bins, bucket belts and belt conveyors. At a central warehouse terminal, such as Port Costa, Sacramento, etc., there must be erected: (4) elevators to hold large amounts of grain for shipping. Further, for export grain (5) ships must be equipped to handle bulk grain by means of shifting boards. The problem of changing from the sack to the bulk-handling of grain therefore not only depends for its solution upon the co-operation of the farmers, but also upon warehousemen, railroads, grain dealers and shipping companies. The present investigation attempted to gather data and opinions from the staff of the College of Agriculture and other interested persons concerning the comparative direct expense of harvesting grain in bulk and in sacks, both from the combined harvester and from the self-binder. The investigation also attempted to set forth clearly the various factors that concern the practicability of the bulk-handling of grain. Some of these factors which concern warehousemen, shippers, etc., are outside the range of this study and therefore no attempt has been made to draw conclusions upon such points. How- ever, men occupied in the business of grain handling and shipping have been consulted and their opinions are set forth herewith. Owing to the varying size of fields and farms, of yields and crops, and the varying effectiveness of men and machines, but a very relative estimate of costs can be made. Therefore whatever estimates might be presented, critics would arise to pronounce them incorrect. The attempt has been made, however, to present average conditions, with the hope of stating figures that may be comparable. It is clearly understood by the investigators that under actual field conditions throughout the state there may be a wide variation from the costs as herein given. The figures and costs were obtained from the University of California Agronomy Division, farmers, and the observations of the investigators during several years' experience in the harvest fields. Cost of Harvesting with the Combined Harvester and Sacking the Grain. Yields of grain in California vary widely. Barley runs from 50 sacks to the acre to 10 sacks, a 15-sack yield is a fair average. Some grain, especially wheat, is cut at 6-sacks yield, and taking both wheat and barley into consideration 10 sacks is an average on which calcula- tion may be based. The cost of harvesting with the combined harvester, which is the most widely used harvesting machine in the state, varies from $1.50 to $5.00 per acre for contract cutting, with $2.50 per acre as a good average. These prices do not include the cost of board of men and teams, nor the cost of sacks. The wide variation is due to the types of soil, the surface, topography and size of the field, the condition of the grain, whether upright or lodged, clean or weedy, and the degree of humidity in the locality, which determines the length of the working day. The amount of competition among the contractors in a certain locality is also an important factor. The cost of sacks has ranged from 6-|c to 14c apiece for the last five years, with an average cost to the farmer of 8|c. The cost of twine varies with the amount used, which depends upon the yield. The cost of picking up sacks is variable, but 20c an acre is a good average. This allows $6.00 a day for a man, team and wagon for picking up 600 sacks a day. One man can pick up 500 sacks of wheat or 600 sacks of barley in a day and pile them in the field. Such a man commands a wage of $3.00 a day and board. Harvesting with a combined harvester with the use of sacks, the cost will run for a 25-sack Crop — Cost of combined harvester, per acre $2.50 Cost of sacks, 25 @ 8£c 2.12* Cost of twine 08 Cost of picking up sacks, hauling £ mile and piling them in the field .25 Total cost - - $4.95^ 10 -sack Crop — Cost of combined harvester, per acre $2.50 Cost of sacks, 10 @ 8£c 85 Cost of twine 05 Cost of picking up sacks, hauling ^ mile and piling them in the field .20 Total cost $3.60 6-sach Crop — Cost of combined harvester, per acre $2.50 Cost of sacks, 6 @ 8£c 51 Cost of twine 05 Cost of picking up sacks, hauling I mile and piling them in the field .20 Total cost $3.26 Cost of Harvesting with a Combined Harvester and Handling the Grain in Bulk. The handling of grain in bulk from the combined harvester is entirely practicable and is practiced in Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma and Kansas. In order to sell their harvesters in Kansas and Oklahoma, where the farmers are not accustomed to the use of sacks, one of the manufacturing companies has a bulk attachment which it puts on its machines, enabling the owner to take the grain from the machine in bulk. Where the elevator is coming into use in Washington and Oregon and the combined harvester is used, many bulk attachments are sold for the bulk-handling of grain. The Ramina Ranch of Teha- chapi, Kern County of this state, uses a bulk attachment on a com- bined harvester in harvesting wheat. In bulk-harvesting the combined harvester spouts the grain directly into a wagon box or the harvester is equipped with bin and elevator attachment which will carry from five to ten sacks of grain. The bulk attachment usually consists of a grain auger, a bin which holds from five to ten sacks, depending on the size of the harvester, and a cup conveyor which carries the grain from the bin into the wagon. It works very satisfactorily on level ground, but a great deal of trouble is likely to be experienced on side hills, where it will be practically as hard to keep the wagon under the elevator spout as it used to be to keep the old header wagon under the header spout. On many side hills, the header wagon had to be tied to the header spout to avoid losing the grain. This would be impossible with a grain wagon. Where the grain wagon is impracticable a few good sacks can be bought and filled. They can then be hauled to the elevator and emptied and returned again to the farm where they can be refilled. This is practiced to a great extent among the small farmers of the East. A 120-pound cotton sack is used, which with good care will last two or three years. Where a harvester is threshing a large crop of 80 sacks per hour, which would be about a 25-sack crop, there would be two loads of 40 sacks each an hour. The average rate of travel of a team under load is two and one-half miles per hour. Figuring one-half hour to load we can tabulate the time of the haul and the number of wagons required for the unit distance. Also, taking 30 acres a day as our standard and $6 as the cost of each wagon, we can figure out the cost of hauling per acre for the unit distances. Number of wagons 3 Cost per acre $0.60 Distance-miles (round trip) 2 Time of hau' (hours) 1 4 .80 4 2 5 1.00 6 2f 6 1.20 8 U 8 1.60 10 4* 9 1.80 12 5^ The cost of hauling more than a 12-mile trip becomes prohibitive, as the grain could be sacked and hauled as cheaply or, for the cost of hauling, bins could be built by which the grain could be handled much more conveniently. In handling grain in bulk on most of our California ranches, perhaps the most practical method would be to haul the grain from the harvester to bins on the ranch. This is being practiced more and more in the East, due mostly to the manufacture of light, portable, steel bins which can be conveniently located about the field and which only cost 12c to 15c a bushel capacity to build. Also the scarcity of labor at harvest time and the independence of the farmer in holding his grain in his own bins has made their use popular. There are many firms in the East who manufacture these steel bins, which hold from 1000 to 2000 bushels. Stationary bins are made which hold up to 4500 bushels. Wooden crib bins cost about 15c to 20c per bushel capacity to build. Machinery and gasoline motor for filling these bins can be purchased for from $150 to $200. The figures here given contemplate the storage of the grain in bins on the ranch because of the great variation in the distance of hauling from different ranches. In figuring the cost of harvesting with a com- bined harvester and handling the grain in bulk, 25c per acre is deducted from the usual cost of the harvester per acre. This amount is saved by elimination of the sack sewer and tender, or "jigger." Harvesting with a combined harvester and handling the grain in bulk the cost will run for a 25-sack Crop — Cost of combined harvester, per acre $2.25 Cost of hauling with three wagons, hauling J mile and unloading .60 Total cost, per acre - $2.85 8 10 -sack Crop — Cost of combined harvester, per acre $2.25 Cost of hauling ^ mile and unloading with two wagons 40 Total cost, per acre $2.65 6-sack Crop — Cost of combined harvester, per acre $2.25 Cosh of hauling \ mile and unloading with one wagon 20 Total cost, per acre $2.41 From the above tables it appears that the extra expense of sacking grain with a combined harvester is : Cost of harvesting 25-sack crop with sacks $4.05* Cost of harvesting 25-sack crop without sacks 2.85 Extra expense of sacking, per acre $2.10* Cost of harvesting 10-saek crop with sacks $3.00 Cost of harvesting 10-sack crop without sacks 2.65 Extra expense of sacking, per acre $0.95 Cost of harvesting 6-sack crop with sacks $3.26 Cost of harvesting 6-sack crop without sacks 2.45 Extra expense of sacking, per acre $0.81 Cost of Harvesting with a Binder and Stationary Thrasher with Sacks. The cost of binding varies from 50c to $1.00 per acre, with 75c as a good average. The average cost of binder twine is 35c per acre. Thrashing with a stationary thrasher varies from 10c to 14c per 110 pounds. In thrashing grain with a stationary thrasher, and handling grain in bulk, but lie per 100 pounds is charged. No wagons are figured as the grain is carried directly from the stationary into portable bins. Harvesting with a binder and stationary thrasher with sacks, the cost will run for a 25-sack Crop — Cost of sack twine $0.08 Cost of binder twine .35 Cost of binding, per acre 75 Cost of hauling bundles, per acre 1.00 Cost of sacks, 25 @ 8Jc 2.12* Cost of thrashing, 2500 lbs. at 12c per 100 lbs 3.00 Total cost, per acre $7.30*. 10-sack Crop — Cost of sack twine $0.05 Cost of binder twine 35 Cost of binding, per acre 75 Cost of hauling bundles, per acre 1.00 Cost of sacks, 10 @ 8^c 85 Cost of thrashing, 1000 lbs. @ 12c per 100 lbs 1.20 Total cost, per acre •. $4.20 ■sack Crop — Cost of sack twine $0.05 Cost of binder twine 35 Cost of binding, per acre 75 Cost of hauling bundles, per acre 1.00 Cost of sacks, 6 @ 8£c 51 Cost of thrashing, 600 lbs. @ 12c per acre 72 Total cost, per acre $3.38 (The cost of thrashing a 6-sack crop would probably be more than 12c per 100 lbs.) Cost of Harvesting with a Binder and Stationary Thrasher and Handling the Grain in Bulk. Harvesting with a binder and stationary thrasher and handling the grain in bulk, the cost will run for a 25-sack Crop — Cost of binder twine $0.35 Cost of binding, per acre 75 Cost of hauling bundles, per acre 1.00 Cost of thrashing, 2500 lbs. @ lie per 100 lbs 2.75 Total cost, per acre $4.85 10-sack Crop — Cost of binder twine $0.35 Cost of binding, per acre 75 Cost of hauling bundles, per acre 1.00 Cost of thrashing, 1000 lbs. @ lie per 100 lbs 1.10 Total cost, per acre $3.20 6-sack Crop — Cost of binder twine $0.35 Cost of binding, per acre 75 Cost of hauling bundles, per acre 1.00 Cost of thrashing, 600 lbs. @ lie per 100 lbs 66 Total cost, per acre $2.76 10 From the above tables it appears that the extra expense of sacking grain with a binder and stationary thrasher is : Cost of harvesting by the self-binder a 25-sack crop with sacks $7.30^ Cost of harvesting by the selfbinder a 25-sack crop without sacks 4.85 Cost of sacking a 25-sack crop, per acre $2.45£ Cost of harvesting by the self-binder a 10-sack crop with sacks $4.20 Cost of harvesting by the self-binder a 10-sack crop without sacks 3.20 Cost of sacking a 10-sack crop, per acre $1.00 Cost of harvesting by the self-binder a 6-sack crop with sacks $3.38 Cost of harvesting by the self-binder a 6-sack crop without sacks 2.76 Cost of sacking a 6-sack crop, per acre $0.62 It can be noted from the above figures that the cost of sacks and twine and the wages of the sack sewer and tender are the controlling factors in the cost of sacking grain. However, under most conditions on the Pacific Coast, bulk grain brings a lower price for export than sacked, the price of sacks being deducted for bulk grain. If this remains the custom the saving of bulk-harvesting will be largely eliminated. It is also true that much of the barley retained in the state is sold for feed in sacks, and probably will always be thus sold. Hence it will probably always be necessary to use sacks for that portion of the crop which is consumed at home. Comparative Costs per Acre of Four Methods of Harvesting. Yield of 25 sacks Combined harvester with sacks $4.95 Combined harvester in bulk 2.85 Self-binder with sacks 7.30 Self-binder in bulk 4.85 Reviewing the above figures it will be noted that there is a decided saving in handling grain by bulk over that in sacks, provided the same harvesting machine is used as before. It is evident, however, that the harvesting costs of the combined harvester with sacks and the self- binder with bulk grain are about equal. Therefore, if along with the elimination of sacks, the "binder" is to supplant the "combine," the saving to the farmer must come from other superiorities that the binder has over the harvester and which bulk grain has over sacked. These superiorities have been claimed to be : (1) Decreased cost in handling bulk grain after it is harvested; (2) Decreased amount of grain lost by bulk handling; Yield of 10 sacks $3.60 Yield of 6 sacks $3.26 2.65 2.45 4.20 3.38 3.20 2.76 11 (3) Decreased amount of grain lost in the field by the binders; (4) Decreased depreciation on machinery; (5) An improved quality of grain through decrease in weediness. The three latter factors are contingent wholly upon the use of the binder and are therefore outside the scope of the present investigation. Only the first two points will be here considered. Decreased Cost in Handling Bulk Grain after It is Harvested. (1) Cost of Handling Sacked Gram after Harvesting The cost of handling sacked grain is divided into four stages : (a) from the machine to the pile in the field and protection there until hauled, (b) to the country warehouse, (c) the country warehouse and (d) the terminal warehouse. (a) Cost from the machine to the pile and covering the pile with straw to protect it from sunburn varies with the size of the crop, but we can figure 30 tons of grain as a good day's work for one man and team. Cost of man, team and wagon, per 30 tons $6.00 Cost of handling from field to pile, per ton 6/30 $0.20 Cost of covering pile with straw, per ton 05 Total cost of piling and covering, per ton $0.25 (b) The cost of hauling from the pile to the warehouse at the rail- road varies a great deal with the distance of the haul and conditions of the roads, but we can figure that the wagons can be loaded and that ten mules will haul eight tons and travel twenty miles per day. This is the general method of hauling grain from the large ranches in California. The cost of such an outfit is: Wages of man $3.00 Hire of mules, 5 span @ $1.50 per span 7.50 Eent of three wagons 1.50 Total cost per day for 8 tons $12.00 Cost of hauling a ton 10 miles and return 1.50 This cost to some may seem a high average, but it is believed, in most cases, will be found rather low than otherwise. The cost of hauling a shorter distance where two trips could be made a day would, of course, be much less. The only additional cost would be the hiring of a swamper for $2.50 per day. Then the total cost of handling sixteen tons would be but $14.50, or 86c per ton. Where the distance is short from the farm to the warehouse, the farmer often furnishes a man with a team and wagon and pays him from lc to 2c a sack, depending 12 on the haul, for picking up the sacks and hauling them to the ware- house. (c) Country warehouse charges as regularly fixed by the Railroad Commission are 75c per ton. This covers the weighing, piling and loading into cars and storage for two months. (d) No definite figure is obtainable of the cost of handling sacked grain at the terminal warehouses, due to the variations in the amount of grain that is handled at different times. This is one of the greatest difficulties with the warehouse system. So much of the work must be done by hand labor that it requires a large number of men. It is practically impossible to keep all these at work all of the time, because of the fluctuation in the daily amount of grain that comes in and leaves the warehouse. Mr. E. J. Luke of the Sperry Flour Company at Stockton states that it takes 14 to 18 men from 36 to 48 hours, according to tide conditions, to unload a 500-ton barge of sacked grain, with the follow- ing cost : 10c per ton taking it from barge, weighing it and putting it into warehouse, 25c a ton to take it from scales, pile it up, pull it down and truck it over to mill dump, making a total cost of 35c per ton to handle it this way. Mr. McLean of the Globe Milling Company states that it required 35 stevedores and 10 of their own men 5 days of 10 hours to unload a 3000-ton ship. This cost amounts to about 35c a ton in wages. Some of the operations that must be performed in bringing the sacked grain in and sending it out at some of the big Port Costa warehouses are as follows : The cars are unloaded by hand, the number of men required to do the unloading varies according to the distance of the trucking; but it is usually figured to unload one car an hour. The grain is piled as it is brought in after weighing. There are pilers, machine feeders and a foreman for the entire crew. When the grain is shipped out it must be taken down from the pile, put on a conveyor and carried to the cleaner. Here the sacks are cut open and run through the cleaner. After cleaning the grain is bagged, put on con- veyors and carried to the ship or car. A sampler samples each sack and also each sack is marked on the way to the ship. This entire operation requires a large gang of men, consisting of markers, samplers, weighers, sack counters, sack cutters, truckers and carrier feeders. Besides these men there are stevedores in the hold of the ship and on the outside feeding the ship's carriers. A great many of the broken sacks must be patched and some men are kept busy at this work. About 15 per cent of the grain shipped has to be resacked. Several 13 machinists and mechanics work about the cleaner and conveyors. All these men receive high wages. The Port of Seattle gives the following rates for the handling of sacked grain at their terminal warehouse, which would correspond very closely with ours: Unloading cars, piling outward, wharfage and 60 days storage $0.50 Trucking to ship, per ton 12^ Cost of resacking, per ton 30 Cost of sacks, per ton, to replace old ones 24 Cost of twine 05 Cleaning and weighing, per ton 40 Cost of loading ship 05 $1.66^ Summing up the cost per ton for handling sacked grain after harvesting : Cost from farm to warehouse $1.50 Cost at country warehouse 75 Cost at terminal warehouse 1.66| Total cost, per ton $3.91 \ Total cost, per 100 lbs 185 . (2) Cost of Handling Bulk Grain after Harvesting Because of the small amount of grain that is handled in bulk in this state, it is impossible to obtain any definite figures on the cost of handling it. On the farm, the cost of handling bulk grain is a little more than that of handling sacked grain, because of the number of wagons required to haul it from the machine to the bins. With a stationary thrasher where the grain is run directly into the bins from the thrasher, the cost is much less for handling it than with sacked grain. As to the cost of hauling bulk grain from the farm to the country elevator, although the length of the haul is as great, the time of loading and unloading is decreased and may permit the employ- ment of a cheaper man or a boy. Bulk-handling saves a lot of hard work. This is difficult to figure in dollars and cents and therefore for our purpose we will consider the cost as about $1.50 per ton. The only information that we have available in California on the cost of handling bulk grain is obtained from the milling companies. Mr. Luke of the Sperry Flour Company states that on unloading a barge load of 500 tons of bulk wheat the cost is less than 4c per ton from the barge to the mill bins, and the difference in weight on the bulk wheat averages about 300 pounds on each barge load of 500 tons. Mr. McLean of the Globe Milling Company of San Francisco says that by handling their grain in bulk on their bulk-carrying steamer 14 Portland from Portland to San Francisco, they pay for the operating charges, depreciation and interest (not including insurance) on $200,000, the cost of their 3000-ton vessel, for 60c a ton. The saving is not so much on operation of the boat but on the stevedore charges at each end of the trip, plus loss in weight from handling. Every means is used to save all grain bags in loading from the hold to the dock. Nevertheless the amount of several tons is lost on each trip in this crude way of handling. Country elevator charges vary somewhat in different states and with different owners. One half cent to one cent a bushel is charged for weighing and storing thirty days and loading into cars. The price sometimes runs higher, but 50c a ton is a conservative price for a country elevator. If the grain is cleaned as usual in most country elevators, a charge of 40c a ton is added for the cleaning, and the screenings are returned to the farmer. The charges at the terminal elevators in the East are from one half to one cent a bushel. According to the rates charged by the Public Terminal Grain Elevator of the Port of Seattle, the charges on the coast are 50c a ton for elevation from the cars, thirty days storage, outward wharfage and delivery in bulk into cars, or to vessels over grain conveying system. Summing up, then, the cost of handling bulk grain after harvest- ing is: Farm to country elevator, per ton $1.50 Country elevator, per ton 90 Terminal elevator, per ton 50 Total cost, per ton $2.90 Total cost, per 100 lbs 145 Cost of handling sacked grain after harvesting, per ton $3.91$ Cost of handling bulk grain after harvesting, per ton 2.90 $1.01i According to the above figures, which must be regarded as only approximate, the after-harvesting saving in handling bulk grain is about one dollar per ton, in addition to which the farmer secures the screenings for use on the farm. Decreased Amount of Grain Lost by Bulk Handling. (1) Losses from Handling Sacked Grain It is practically impossible to obtain any definite estimates of the losses in handling sacked grain. Most of these losses occur from leaky sewing and broken sacks. There is also a great loss from the floor of the "dog-house" and from the top of the sacks when sewing. 15 Mr. Luke of Stockton says that the Sperry Flour Company lose, on the average, 14 tons or ^ of 1 per cent in shipping 2500 tons of sacked grain on barges from San Francisco to Stockton. He also says that from every 500-ton barge load received, there is a usual loss of from 2000 pounds to 4000 pounds, or 2 per cent to 4 per cent. This loss occurs from the trucking of leaky sacks. Mr. Dozier and Mr. McCormick of Rio Vista are of the opinion that about 2 pounds of grain is lost for each sack that comes through the combined harvester before it reaches the warehouse. They attribute this loss to the shuffling of grain from the floor of the "dog-house" by the feet of the sewer and tender, failure to brush off the tops of sacks before dumping them, bursting of sacks in the field and on the wagon, and the cutting of the sacks by field mice in the field. A prominent warehouseman of Sacramento has stated that the only profit that he made in the warehouse business came from the grain that he cleaned up from broken and cut grain bags. Several grain warehousemen have stated that when grain is left in the warehouse for any great length of time as high as 40 per cent has to be resacked, due to the cutting of the mice and rats which are practically impossible to eradicate. In the rulings of the Railroad Commission on the application of warehousemen for a raise in rates from 50c a ton to 75c a ton for unloading and storage for two months, the main reason given for the need of a 25c raise is the cost of resacking after storage. (2) Losses from Handling Bulk Grain There is no definite information available on the losses incurred from the handling of bulk grain. About the only loss on the farm would come from the leaky wagon beds. As this could be easily pre- vented there would be no reason for it but carelessness. The loss in the country elevator is small. Around the elevators, even when they are running at full blast, there is practically no grain lying about on the floor. The opposite of this has always been seen in every warehouse. As all bins are made mouse- and rat-proof, there should be no loss from this source either on the farm or in the elevator, as is usually the case with grain in sacks. Mr. Luke of the Sperry Flour Company of Stockton gives the loss in shipping and handling a 500-ton barge of bulk grain from San Francisco to Stockton as never over 300 pounds, which is an exceed- ingly small loss and is likely due to a great extent in the difference in two men weighing the same grain over different scales. 16 Opinions of Farmers. Through the county farm bureaus and their centers in various communities, the investigators consulted farmers in Solano, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Madera and Kern counties. Some typical opinions expressed are as follows : Mr. Dozier: "The elevator is the best method of handling grain and it won't be long before we will have one in this town. It recently cost us $50 for labor and sacks to prepare 7000 sacks of grain for shipment, due to mice cutting the sacks." Mr. McCormick: "The elevator is the best method of handling grain and I think that it will come in time, but I don't believe that we are ready for it yet. I don't believe that it will work on the islands because of the weeds." Mr. McEadgen, Dixon: "The bulk method of handling grain is undoubtedly the best method and we will have to come to it. I would like to have an experi- ment carried on here. The Farmers' Union has three warehouses and I think that they could be persuaded to change one of them over to the bulk system for handling grain." Mr. Kilkenny, Dixon: "I think that the elevator will be a great saving to the farmer. He can cut his sack bill in two. At least I would like to try it, as I believe it will save money." Mr. Laughlin, Waterford: "I don't know much about the bulk-handling of grain, only that it is done. But when a man has to spend 10 per cent of his crop receipts for sacks to put his crop in, things ought to be changed. I don 't know just how one would handle it off the harvester, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be arranged by buying 500 or 1000 sacks and using them two or three times. If conditions can be fixed I am for it." Mr. Louis Brigetto, Oakdale: "The bulk-handling of grain may be all right for the big grain sections, but it won't do with me, as I am too uncertain as to the amount of land that I farm and just where I farm it. This section is being cut up more every day and in a few years there won't be hardly any grain raised here, all the lard will be fruit and alfalfa. There is always some waste from a harvester, but I don't know just how much." Samuel Howard, Westley: "I think that the bulk-handling of grain is a good proposition and I am willing to try it if facilities are fixed for it. I spend around $1000 a year for sacks, which is a total loss to me. If I shipped in bulk, I would save it. Bulk-shipping ought to work fine here on the West Side, as it is a short haul to the track from either side. ' ' Ralph Zacharias, Patterson: "I spend about $2000 a year for sacks, which is practically a total loss to me. In our own warehouse here, where we keep about .3000 sacks, we lose from $300 to $500 a year from mice and rats. I would like to try the bulk-handling of my grain if arrangements can be made for it." Mr. Schmitz, Madera: "The handling of grain in bulk would be a great saving to the grain farmers. I spend from $1500 to $2000 per year for sacks, which is a total waste. I had two men with ten mules and three wagons hauling 440 sacks a day. A sack buck picking up 700 sacks a day gets $3.50. Last year I stored 3600 sacks here on the ranch. When I hauled it to town in January I had to refill about 1000 sacks. If I had bins there would have been no need of this. I can install bins on my place very easily if facilities come so that it could be handled at Port Costa and the railroad centers. I would like to see a demonstration tried." Mr. Pann, Chowchilla: "I cut eighty acres with a binder this year and it cost $1 an acre for cutting and $1 for twine. Thrashing costs lie to 12c per 100 pounds. It cost a little more than a harvester but we more than twice paid for it in the savings of grain. Contract cutting by the harvester is done for from $1.75 to $2.25 per acre. We paid 9c for sacks. The losses from the harvester last year ran from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. There is one thing sure about the bulk-handling of grain, and that is we ought to handle our grain that way." 17 Mr. Van Nostrum, Tracy: "I think that it would be fine if we could handle our grain in bulk as they do in the East. It will be a great saving in sacks. We use the binder and believe that it is cheaper than the harvester because we do not lose so much grain in shattering. We lose some grain with the binder, due mostly to stacking bundles when the wind is blowing. The harvester can be made to get most of the grain when a man wants to make it in ideal cutting. It costs us 32c an acre for twine, about 50c to bind, and 10c or lie a 100 lbs. to thrash. The stacking of the bundles is one of the biggest items. We get cleaner grain with the stationary thrasher than we do with the combined harvester. " Mr. D. W. Jenning, Manager Eamina Ranch, Tehachapi: "Please allow me to state that I made the change this last year and harvested 2500 acres and saved enough money by the change to pay for my complete installation of elevator and conveying system, together with bins and Invincible cleaning machine and smutter, making a total of close to $2000. I have outlined the practical cost for the change and based my figures on 1000 bushels per day. By this I mean that my harvester cut and threshed 1000 bushels and I hauled same to warehouse and by using elevator, put it into the bins in a ten-hour day. "First: The cost of installing the necessary equipment on a combined har- vester is very small and is done by simply building a small hopper, holding approximately fifty bushels, directly under the grain discharge. From this hopper I put in a spout of gravity flow to the wagon. These wagons were made grain-tight and were driven alongside the harvester, and as soon as full the hopper was shut off by a lever operated by the driver and the grain was then taken direct to the warehouse. From the time it is cut until it is in the bin, it is not touched by the hand of man. My dump is fixed by allowing the hind wheels of the wagon to drop into a small shoot and by opening the end gate the grain is allowed to run into the receiving pit of the elevator. The elevator consists simply of rubber belt with buckets for conveying the grain to upper conveyor and emptying direct into the bins. This installation can be made for about $25.00 if no conveyors are used, just simply dumping the grain into the bins, providing, of course, that you have power for running the elevators. If it is necessary to get power, a small 2J to 5 h.p. engine will do the work in fine shape, making the total cost of perhaps $150. This is on a small scale and not equipped for general warehouse purposes. "Second: Eeturning to the 1000 bushels per day. I used three four-horse teams, two of which operated between the machine and warehouse continuously, and the other four horses were used to load wagons from the harvester. These teams are figured at $6.50 per day, including driver. The only extra help I used was one man at the warehouse, and I allowed $5.00 per day for his wages and the fuel used to run the distillate engine, making a total cost of $24.50 per day to handle 1000 bushels of grain for harvester to the bins. "Third: The old way of handling cost me last year, figuring on the same basis, using the three four-hourse teams, $71.80 and is itemized as follows: Three teams at $6.50 $19.50 Sacks for 1000 bushels 36.80 One man on harvester as sack gig @ $2 2.00 One sack sewer 3.00 One man in warehouse to help pile 2.50 $63.80 "On this same 1000 sacks I lost at least 10 per cent of the sacks that were destroyed by mice, etc., and had to replace them at a cost of $8.00, making a total cost of $71.80 as compared to $24.50 this year, a difference of $47.30 per day, on the basis of 1000 bushels threshed per day. "Also I found in handling the grain in bulk this way there was no loss of grain from sacking, as everyone knows who has handled grain that there is more or less grain lost from the sacking stand on the separator and from the sacks being dumped on the ground, etc. Again I saved at least 10 per cent on my whole crop by being able to run the grain direct from the receiving pit into the cleaning and smutting machine and into the bin, all in one transaction. I am also able to convey my grain from the bins at any time to the cars by 18 machinery. Another advantage to be gained by handling bulk grain is that in case of storm or bad weather the grain is all in the warehouse and not dumped upon the field. "I am satisfied from my own experience that every farmer should equip himself to handle grain in bulk." Opinions of Others Interested in Grain. The opinion of buyers, shippers, warehousemen, milling companies, steamship companies, insurance underwriters, and manufacturing companies was asked on the practicability of bulk-handling of grain. Some of these follow : American-Hawaiian S. S. Co.: "It is not practicable to carry grain in bulk unless we receive large enough shipments to fill completely at least one lower hold of one of our steamers. Our ships carry a mixed general cargo and run on a schedule and it is not possible to carry bulk grain in them in parcel shipments. We have carried grain, but we carry it in sacks and do not bleed the sacks, and a requirement of ours is that the sacks shall be all new and free from sunburn. If the bulk system is gone over to and facilities are furnished for loading and a sufficient quantity can be had to fill one of the lower holds of our steamer, our New York people would probably take up the question of making arrangements for the carrying of bulk grain. ' ' East Asiatic S. S. Co. : ' ' I have always held a view that it is indeed quite feasible for any ship to carry grain in bulk and, in certain instances, it would be a very great advantage because of the quicker handling. The difficulty to my mind does not appear to have ships, that is, steamers, carry grain in bulk but it is whether the outlook for grain export from California is great enough to involve erection of elevators. ' ' Mr. George Eggers, W. E. Grace & Co.: "A good deal of grain has been transported in bulk from Puget Sound and Columbia River to Sperry's Mill, South Vallejo. Vessels have to be equipped for the proper handling of this class of cargo, that is, shifting boards should be installed on the center line and holds properly lined so that grain will not become damaged by contact with ship 's side and not get into bilges. Vessels get very good despatch, loading at the rate of about 200 tons per hour and discharging at the rate of about 150 tons per hour." Mr. T. Henry, ship broker: "Here on this coast we are fifty years behind time. All the grain on the Atlantic Coast is shipped in bulk. I don't see why we couldn't do the same here. Of course our ships are not all equipped for it now, but new types of boats are being built all of the time. I believe that the old sailing vessels and the steamers can be equipped rather cheaply to carry grain in bulk. The Panama Canal is going to greatly shorten the route so that it will become more advisable. I cannot give you any definite information, only that what I think. It will have to come up for trial." Mr. A. F. Pillsbury, surveyor of ships: "I think that shipment in bulk is the most economical way of transporting grain by sea as well as by land and river and bay transportation. In the East and on the Atlantic Coast most of the grain is handled in this way and I see no good reason why this practice should not be followed on the Pacific Coast, providing the Panama Canal be open, so that the ocean voyage will not be too long in transporting such cargoes from the Pacific Coast to the Atlantic Coast and Europe. There should be no trouble in transporting grain in bulk from the Pacific Coast to Japan and China. Many of the modern tramp steamers are constructed for the purpose of carry- ing grain in bulk." Mr. T. Cary Fried-lander, Secretary Grain and Trade Association, San Fran- cisco: "The economic conditions in grain growing in California have been always much the same as they are today, save that shipping conditions are a little better, due to the more prevalent use of steamship and the opening of the Panama Canal. Economic conditions in the past have not brought it about, 19 and I believe that if the bulk-handling of grain was that much better than the sacking of grain, conditions would have changed in the past. "A change to the bulk-handling system from the present sack system will mean a complete change from the detailed equipment on the farm, the country warehouse, the rolling stock and crafts for transportation, and the terminal warehouses at tidewater. This change will require an enormous amount of capital. The only real saving will occur in the cost of handling, as the price of sacks will not be eliminated as deductions will be made for their cost in the purchasing price of bulk grain. "There are places in this state where peculiar conditions exist which are adaptable to the bulk-handling of grain. Wherever these conditions exist the farmers will change over to the bulk system. The fact that a great percentage of our barley and wheat crop is sold for feed, and this feed is necessarily sold in sacks, and also since all the by-products of our mills are sold in sacks, goes to show that sacks are absolutely necessary to our conditions, and it doesn 't make much difference whether the farmer or the grain buyer buys them. ' ' Mr. Henry C. Bunker, Chief Grain Inspector, Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco: "I do not believe that to change over to the bulk system will be possible because of the cost of the change to the farmer, the warehousemen, the railroads, the distance which the farmer has to haul his grain and the customary use of sacks in the past." Mr. Volmer, Volmer & Perry, grain dealers: "The change may be possible, but it is not practical. Barley cut by a combined harvester produces a much better grade of brewing barley than that from the binder, being much brighter in color and more mellow." G. W. McNear, G. W. McNear & Co., Inc., San Francisco: "From an ex- porter 's point of view it is entirely practicable to handle grain in bulk. In fact, it is preferable and more economical, but it would mean a complete rearrange- ment of our handling facilities from farm to tidewater; that is, interior elevators, different class of railroad cars, and suitable elevators at tidewater terminals. "This would mean a considerable investment and it is a question whether the volume of business for export would justify it. The export of wheat from this state is insignificant, practically none today. We have and will continue to have for export several hundred thousand tons of barley. If in the future, the production of wheat and barley should increase and we should have for export the quantities that we had fifteen or twenty years ago, then it might be advisable to take up this question. "Most of the local mills, both feed and flour, are equipped and could readily receive grain from the interior in bulk, and so far as the shipping interests at Port Costa are concerned, most of us are equipped to handle grain in bulk to a certain extent. While there are certain localities in the state where the interior interests migh be warranted in putting up small elevators, generally speaking, I don't think the matter under present conditions is of sufficient importance to go into the question in a large way of handling grain in bulk." E. Clemens Horst Co.: "There is no doubt in our minds but that it will be only a short time until most of the California barley business will be done in bulk entirely. There will have to be some changes made in the methods of doing business, but the advantages of bulk-handling of grain are so great that there is no doubt but that the handling of the crop in sacks will eventually be discontinued." Mr. E. H. Shibley, Superintendent Port Costa Warehouse and Dock Co.: "Personally I would rather handle grain in bulk than in sacks, though the change necessary to be made in order to handle it in bulk would cost a great deal. Between June 1, 1913, and June 1, 1914, we handled almost 250,000 tons of grain through our warehouse, and the largest quantity we had stored at any one time was 58,000 tons. The number of men employed in receiving, cleaning, and shipping grain depends, of course, upon the quantity and quality of the grain handled. In July, 1914, our payroll showed 320 men, in August 286 men, in September 304 men, and in October 240 men. During the corresponding months of the year 1915 our payroll showed 136 men, 161 men, 129 men, and 20 122 men, respectively. Warehousemen are paid 35c per hour for nine hours and they receive 52£c an hour for work after five o'clock, for night work, and for Sundays and holidays. Stevedores receive 55c per hour and are paid $1.00 per hour for night work and for work on Sundays and holidays. In one day of nine hours we loaded over 2500 tons of grain." Mr. Perry, Perry & Melone, Stockton, CaL: "There is no doubt about the elevator system being the best and most economical system of handling grain, but the conditions under which grain is produced here in California almost prevents their establishment. The grain business is too unstable. We have large crops one year and small ones the next. The warehouse today is a loss and is maintained merely as a matter of convenience. We charge 2Jc per hundred or 50c per ton for taking, weighing, storing one month and shipping grain. Twenty-five cents a month is charged for additional month's storage and $1.00 is charged for the entire season. Many warehouses are losing money. I wouldn't want to put up an elevator, depending on storage for income. It would be up to the farmer or some one else to build them." Mr. Stowe, Farmers' Union and Milling Co., Stockton, CaL: "The elevator system is the best system of handling grain because of economy in time and labor, but will take some time to bring about in California. I do not believe that the future of the grain business in San Joaquin County will warrant the building of elevators. Grain will be used in the future in a system of rotation only. "The weeds in the island barley practically prevent it being put into an elevator until recleaned, which requires sacking first. If the sacks were left in the field two weeks and then cleaned, perhaps it could be elevated. It is a proposed radical change on account of the high cost of sacks this year, and just as soon as the cost of sacks drops to normal price the bulk-system agitation for handling our grain will be over. "I believe that if any elevators are to be put up they will have to be put up by the farmers themselves, or by large organizations such as the Sperry Flour Co. and Globe Grain and Milling Co., who are in the milling business. It will be a long time before California adopts the elevator system. Why? Because it's a dying business — less acreage for grain every year, and who wants to put large amounts of money into strings of elevators?" Mr. A. Grunneur, Tracy: "If the farmers think it a good plan to change over to the bulk system and arrangements can be made for handling and shipping of bulk grain to and from Port Costa, I will be willing to make the change even if the cost is large. In keeping grain in the warehouse for six months we have to resack about 10 per cent of it. "We have sold a great many binders during the past few years, but they have gone out west of here, where the wind is the heaviest and there is the greatest shattering. The farmers down below here laugh at you when you say anything about binders to them. I believe that the harvester is more wasteful than economical, in locations where the wind blows so strong as to shatter a lot of the standing grain before it is ready for the harvester." Mr. Turner, Grange Company, Modesto: "The bulk system of handling grain is probably the most economical for that portion of Stanislaus County where a good share of the crop is for shipment. You understand that certain portions of our grain-producing section serve our own local market, where it is morr economically handled for delivery in sacks. Should terminal facilities foi handling bulk grain be arranged for in California and the farmers in our sec- tion prefer that method of handling, we would be inclined to make arrange- ments to handle bulk grain in those sections of the country where we have warehouses, where there would be such a demand." Mr. George Stewart, Grain Superintendent for Simon Newman Co., Newman : "The only thing that I see against the bulk handling of grain in this state is the change from the present system to the bulk system, which will do away with the warehouses." Mr. Saunders, Madera: "I have never thought much about the elevator system and have not seen an elevator in operation. There isn 't any money in the warehouse business. It is all lost in excess labor, which can't be kept per- 21 maneiitly employed. If the elevator is much more of a saving I would be in favor of it, if it doesn 't cost too much. I am in favor of all modern improve- ments that are a benefit to all concerned. The only money that I make is in my barley mill and the wholesale and retail business. It cost me about 50c a ton to put grain in the pile before I got my machine to pile with. Now it costs less. I have interviewed quite a number of people concerning the elevator system of handling grain. From what I have learned the same is not practicable at this time in this vicinity, for the following reasons: "First. Grain land being subdivided. "Second. Price of land being too high to raise grain. ' ' Third. Haul to Port Costa too short. "Fourth. More diversified farming every year. "Fifth. Land has been farmed for grain thirty years; does not pay any more. "Sixth. It would take the railroad about eight years to equip for handling grain loose. "Seventh. Our harvest is ninety days; too much money to install elevators for ninety days ' work. "Eighth. The farmers would receive less for their grain in bulk than in sacks, consequently would not save the price on sacks." Mr. Woods, Merced: "I don't believe that the present outlook of the future of California grain industry here on the east side would warrant the change. We have lost the use of two warehouses in the last few years due to irrigation and subdivision of the large grain ranches. Those warehouses which they are operating at present are about filled to their capacity in good seasons." Mr. E. S. Wagenheim, Superintendent of S. Newman Co., Newman: "I have thought about the bulk-handling of grain a great deal the past two years, and believe that it is the only thing and that it will have to come about. Farmers have to pay altogether too much for sacks. I don 't know what it costs to build elevators, but they will be built as soon as the railroads will furnish us shipping facilities. Also, elevators will have to be built at the terminals. In order to bring about the change you work on the railroad and terminal ware- house people for facilities, and the farmer and the shipper will soon fall in line. ' ' Mr. Niel Nielson, Australian Commissioner at the P. P. I. E., made a report to the Government of New South Wales on the bulk-handling of grain. The Australian Government has laid plans to change over from the sack system to the bulk method of handling grain. "A commission of engineers decided to make the change on my report and that of an American elevator builder who reported on the relative costs of their construction. The railroads, which are owned by the Government, are going to make the change, so the Government will indirectly stand the cost. Grain is now harvested in Australia with a harvester which has a 10-foot cut and is drawn by four horses. They cut about fifteen acres a day and are handled by one man. They are on the stripper "plan. Grain is put in bags which weigh under 200 lbs. One stripper carries five sacks, which are set off the machine when full and sewn." Mr. Luke, Sperry Flour Company: "Our 1800 ton steel bins cost us, includ- ing foundations, $14,000. Our total expenditure was $25,000, but this included elevator on the wharf, carrier from wharf to bins and also reconstructing barge for bulk wheat. Our new wood bins, which hold a little over 3000 tons, cost us $21,000, but this included carriers from cars to bins and a long carrier belt from bins to mill. Our total cost for the bins and foundations above amounted to $17,000. We unload from the barge to the bins for 4c a ton. It used to cost us 10c a ton to place the sacked grain from the barge on the wharf, and 25c a ton to put it in the warehouse. ' ' Phoenix Milling Company, Sacramento: "Where great quantities of grain are handled, the bulk or elevator system is the best and cheapest. As the crop of wheat in California is growing smaller year by year it is doubtful whether it would pay to change over at this late day. A large portion of the California wheat crop goes out as poultry and stock food, and will have to be sacked anyway, and so it is with corn, oats, Egyptian corn, and other grain, which latter articles are not raised in sufficient quantities to justify building elevators for. 22 "We have been asked by farmers whether they would get more for wheat in sacks than in bulk and our answer is that grain in sacks will certainly be paid for at a higher price and in the proportion to the cost of sacks and sacking. "As far as we are, ourselves, concerned in this matter we have an eighty thousand bushel elevator in conjunction with our mill, and we prefer receiving grain in bulk instead of in sacks. This elevator is of reinforced concrete and cost us at the rate of $0.27 per bushel. "The fact that the California farmer can leave his wheat in the field after sacking for three months or more after harvesting and before hauling to ware- house or selling, is quite a factor against handling the grain in bulk, in which latter case he would have to haul the grain to the elevator at once." Mr. A. B. Haslacher, Manager Oakdale Milling Co.: "The bulk system of handling grain works well in the East, where the binder and stationary thresher is used. In California, where the combined harvester is used, the grain is not cleaned so well and it is doubtful whether it would work so satisfactorily. Wheat which is well threshed might be handled in bulk, although the present tendency among millers is to keep each lot of California wheat separate, making the blend at the mill in accordance with the gluten test developed in each lot. Barley varies so greatly in cleanliness, that it would be difficult to bulk together several different lots for feed purposes, since farmers and buyers could not agree as to standards. Shipping or brewing barley would probably have to be kept separate in country elevators, the blending, if any, being done at terminal points. Shippers and maltsters like to do their own grading. "Farmers in this vicinity have not stock enough to have their hauling keep pace with their threshing operations. It is customary in this vicinity to pile the sacked grain in the field, hauling later in the season when threshing is finished. Apparently, there is a certain convenience in this. "The present agitation in favor of elevators is largely due to the abnormal price of jute grain bags, due to war conditions. The price of sacked grain will always be more than bulk grain. In buying Eastern wheat we pay 1\ cents more per cental for sacked grain than we do for bulk grain. In years previous to 1916, when the price of sacks was normal, this increase in price practically took care of the cost of sacks. "There would have to be a change in railroad equipment as well as in terminal storage facilities to make possible handling of bulk grain. To make the change necessary at Port Costa alone, would involve the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions. There has been a certain unwillingness on the part of shippers and millers to expend a sum necessary to effect this change in a business which is waning as fast as grain raising in California. The warehousemen in the interiors, as a rule, would not be willing to make the change. Fifteen years ago our line comprised thirty warehouses well filled every year, most of the time unable to handle all the grain offering. At present we operate twenty warehouses and it is rare to find one more than indifferently filled. Every warehouseman will tell the same story. Owing to large areas going into other products, the amount of grain raised in California is constantly cut down. "In conclusion, the present agitation is due primarily to the exorbitant price of sacks. When grain sacks emerge from the "War Baby" class, the storage of grain will proceed along the same old lines. There is a certain convenience of handling bulk, but there is also a certain convenience, as I have tried to point out, of handling in sacks. The immense cost of making the change would not be justified and will not be attempted in a general way." Mr. W. E. Shepherd, Holt Mfg. Co.: "There is no question but that the farmers of California could save an immense amount of money if their grain could be handled in bulk, and I believe that in many parts of California it will be handled in bulk in the future. Of course in some sections of the country, where the raising of grain is being replaced by the raising of other products, an extensive elevator system would not be practical. But even in these sections, small elevators built by the farmers themselves will be used to a greater or less degree. "As far as handling grain in bulk from combined harvester is concerned, the matter is very simple. All Holt harvesters can be equipped for handling 23 bulk grain at a very small cost. In fact, harvesters that we have sent to Oklahoma and Kansas, where elevators are the rule, have all been equipped to handle grain in bulk. They have proved that the handling of bulk grain from combined harvesters is satisfactory. It has ceased to be an experiment with us.' ' Mr. J. W. Duval, Crop Technologist in charge Grain Standardization, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture: "I have to advise that there is no very definite information available as to the relative cost of these two methods, as so much depends on the volume of grain handled, management, and other factors. It goes without saying, however, that the cost of handling grain in sacks is very much greater than by handling in bulk. In our work we generally consider that the cost of bulk-handling is about one-fourth that of handling in bags, that is, for the handling alone. There is, of course, an additional cost to farmers in the expense of bags, which usually range from eight to ten cents or from four to five cents per bushel. "In an article in the Grain Dealers Journal, Vol. 32, No. 8, issue of April 25, 1914, there is a brief summary of the report of the committee appointed . to investigate the saving of handling grain by bulk on the Pacific Coast, which committee reported that in Oregon this would result in a saving of $660,000. In an article which appeared in the Price Current-Grain Reporter, Vol. 71, hi. 3, p. 19, issue of January 21, 1914, Mr. Louis Delivuk of Quincy, Wash., says that in 1910 the sack system reduced the net price received by farmers of Washing- ton for their wheat by nineteen cents per bushel as compared with the average received by all farmers in the United States, and in 1911 the average was fifteen cents per bushel under the amount received by other farmers. In a short article in the American Elevator and Grain Trade, Vol. 32, No. 4, p. 182, issue of October, 1913, which article refers especially to the handling of grain on the Pacific Coast, it is estimated that the additional cost of handling in sacks for the Northwest is $2,000,000." CONCLUSIONS It is apparent that the bulk-handling of grain on California farms, either from the combined harvester or from the binder, is entirely practicable and would undoubtedly make for economy and for the betterment of the industry. It is also apparent that it is much more easily accomplished for wheat than for barley, due to the systems in vogue for grading the grains and to the fact that all California wheat is used in the state. How much the actual saving would be for either cereal to the farmer is problematical, owing to the uncertainty of (1) the future comparative prices for sacked and bulk grain, (2) the varying dis- tances grain must be hauled from the farm, and (3) the future price of sacks. The greatest saving by handling grain in bulk is after the grain leaves the farm. The contention that the old sacked system of handling grain is necessarily inherent to California is amply disproved by the experience of other grain-producing countries which, prompted by governmental investigation, have changed from the sacked to the bulk system with the advent of the grain-carrying steamship. In the last twenty years, California has changed from a wheat exporting to a wheat importing state. Meanwhile the production of 24 barley has so greatly increased that the export problem of grain- handling is largely confined to barley. Since wheat in California is largely consumed inside the state, it is much more readily possible to handle that grain by bulk since no export problems are thereby encountered. The bulk-handling of barley is attended with greater difficulty than that of wheat, due to the fact that barley is purchased more upon its physical appearance than upon its chemical quality. Brewers have been in the habit of purchasing barley in individual lots on the theory that the germination of these lots would be uniform and therefore the brewing quality of the product would be of higher grade than otherwise. Because the change from the sacked to the bulk-handling of barley necessitates the mixing of various lots, the difficulties are greatly increased. Of the six changes which the shift from the sacked to the bulk method would make necessary for export grain, three lie beyond the farm and rural community. It is easy to conceive that farmers may (1) equip harvesting machinery to handle bulk grain, and (2) build grain bins or portable elevators on the farm, and that (3) elevators may be built by co-operative effort at local shipping points. It is not so easy, however, to predict that the other necessary changes can be accomplished merely by the agitation of farming communities. These are (4) the erection of a great terminal elevator, (5) equipment of rolling stock, boats and ships to carry bulk grain, and (6) the per- manent opening of the Panama Canal. Of these the most important, and for the present the most uncertain, is the erection of a terminal elevator to accommodate the export grain. Until some plan is under way for a terminal elevator and until grain ships are equipped to carry bulk grain through the Canal, it is evidently undesirable for the barley ranchers to make any large expenditure for building local elevators, farm grain bins or bulk grain harvester attachments. If the time comes to erect local elevators at shipping points it may be well for the farmers of California to profit by the experience of middle western states. It was there learned by bitter experience that unless there were more than one local elevator to which farmers could ship, or unless the local elevator were maintained by some co-operative enterprise for the common benefit, the likelihood of monopolistic control and of consequent dissatisfaction was greatly increased. If it is desirable to ship in bulk it thereby becomes desirable to build upon the co-operative plan such local elevators as may be necessary.