Implement sheds — Reading Companion

Text printed underlined, in italics or in bold face type in the original work have been transcribed between ~tildes~, _underscores_ and =equal signs= respectively.

=~IMPLEMENT SHEDS~= How They Should Be Designed The Simple Shed Type The Open Shed Type The Wide Enclosed Type The Two-Story Type Space Required for Common Implements The Selection of Building Material

Revised, September, 1916.

Over fifty million dollars is lost every year on American farms because implements and machinery are not properly housed. Is part of this wasted on YOUR farm?

Protection of farm machinery in well built implement sheds means dollars earned through dollars saved. On the average farm an implement shed saves annually as much as the income from $1,800 at interest.

Implement Sheds _by_ _K. J. T. Ekblaw_

Published by the TRADE EXTENSION DEPARTMENT National Lumber Manufacturers Association

General Series No. 10

Fourth Edition, February, 1917.

A very fair indication of the thrift and general prosperity of a farmer is the method he employs in caring for his tools. Shiftlessness, waste, lack of energy, constant buying and heavy burdens of debt will accompany poor care. Good care is an indication of shrewdness, business ability, long-lived machinery, comfortable bank balances and the assurance of a peaceful, prosperous future.

To the progressive man, figures speak more forcibly than does the most persuasive lecturer on economic topics. The report of the United States Census for 1910 contains some figures that bear a distinct message to the farmers of the country. In 1900 the value of all farm property in the shape of farm implements and machinery was $749,775,970; in 1910 this same value had increased to $1,265,149,783, representing an increase of 68.7 per cent. This increase can be ascribed mainly to increased quantity rather than to higher prices, for the increase in price of farm machinery has been comparatively slight. It means that the farmers are realizing the benefits to be derived from the use of labor-saving machinery. In 1900 the acreage of improved land in farms was 414,498,487; in 1910 this became 478,451,750, an increase of only 15.4 per cent. These figures may be a little more significant if expressed in the following way: In 1900 there was $1.80 worth of machinery for each acre of improved farm land; in 1910 this had increased to $2.65, or an increase of over 47 per cent.

These figures will immediately indicate an opportunity for the furtherance of economic agriculture. With so much capital invested in equipment, the American farmer would certainly be a very bad business man indeed if he did not take some means of protecting this equipment to reduce depreciation and to increase its length of life. The question has sometimes been asked, does it pay to house farm machinery? Is it not a better practice not to give any special care to the machinery but use it as long as it will run without care then buy newer and more up-to-date equipment?

The situation bears some consideration. According to Census figures, the average investment per farm in farm machinery is almost exactly $200. This, however, is the case when every sort of farm is included, and since the Census Bureau’s definition of a farm is extremely liberal it would not be practical for our purposes. A fair estimate of the average value of farm machinery on a farm is $1,000. No reliable figures are available to indicate the rate of depreciation of farm machinery; one farmer will take excellent care of his binder and it may do service for twenty or twenty-five years, while another farmer will leave his binder in the middle of the field where the last stalk of grain was cut, and it would be surprising if his machine could operate satisfactorily for more than five seasons. To take ten years as the average life of farm machinery is certainly to be considered conservative.

Most farm machines are well and substantially constructed and will render satisfactory and efficient service with slight repairs for a much longer term of years than the average which has just been given. It is entirely safe to assume that the average length of efficient service can be increased to fifteen years providing proper care is given. It is almost equally safe to assume that the average life of uncared-for machinery will not be much more than five years.