The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-08-10
FALLS ON FARMERS.
II. L. Holman Calls Attention to New
Grain Grading System

Thad l. Hoffman, general manager
OF the Hoffman Elevator company at
Enterprise. has written the following
article for the State Journal to show
that the new system of grain grad
ing places an added burden on the
farmer:
To the Editor of the state Journal:
have before me a circular letter
from the chief inspector of the Kan
sas state grain inspection department,
which reads as follows
kansas City. Kan. Aug. 8. 1911.
ITO Assistant Grain Inspectors:
Dear Sir; In quite a per cent of
the wheat receipts from various locali-
ties weed seed and other objection
able matter is found.
"ReaIizing the difficulty in estab-
fishing rules that would cover all cases,
inspectors viii be governed as follows:
Wheat containing as much as half
OF one per cent of the above and good
enough in all other respects to carry
a No 2 grade should be co graded, but
should you find a greater per cent
than the above given the wheat should
be graded No. 8.
Wheat containing thfee-quarters Of
one per cent of weed seed and other
Objectionable matter AID otherwise
good enough for No. should be so
graded, but If a greater per cent is
found then the car should be graded
No. A.
wheat containing ono per cent and
over should be graded No. or sample,
according to the amount it carries.
Much care should be exercised in ar
irving at conclusion, by taking sew
eral samples and passing them over
selves etc. bearing in mind that some
parts of the car may carry much more
foreign matter than others.
Respectfully yours
CHIEF INSPECTOR"
This ruling is very Unfair to the
wheat raisers of Kansas ard will prob
ably cost the farmers CT Kansas a
good many thousands CT dollars each
year.
thing as they must of course, take the
same dOcka ge from the farmer that the
buyers take from the country elevator
men.
1t seems that the grading of grain,
especially wheat, has become more
until the cost to the farmer, who event
ually pays the bill, is very large.
Under this new ruling the following
is what it will cost the farmer who
suming the wheat tests SO pounds or
better and is sound and sweet:
No. If there is half Of 1 per cent
of weed seed or Objectionable matter
the loss to the farmer would be IS.
No. Assuming the wheat tested So
pounds and was sound and sweet II
there was three quarters of 1 per cent
of weed seed or other Objectionable
matter, the l7ss would be from $40 to
SIS.
No. 3-Assuming the wheat was So
pounds or better and was sound and
sweet If there was 1 per cent of weed
seed or other Objectionable matter the
loss would be $40.
The following would be the loss to
the buyers:
1 per cent of 10000 pounds, 300 pounds;
300 pounds at IS cents per busnel, tpres
ent cost to buyers) loss $4.25; net gain
20 cents.
Second case given a ove-Three-quar-
tiers of / per cent on $4,000 pounds;
45O pounds at IS cents; loss 1888; net
gain 1892 to sS.G2.
Third case given aboVe-One per cent
of $4,000 pounds, 600 POUNDS at So cents
per bushel; loss $3.50; net gain $31. 80
Fourth case given above-Assuming
the wheat contained ? per cent the in
sre ctor would grade the wheat sample
(this you viii note is left to the in
spector) ? per cent Of $4,000 pounds, ], zoo
pounds at IS cents per bushel; less $l7;
net gain from $33 to SS3.
II the wheat goes to a miller he
chops and mixes the seeds in the bran
and shorts and his gain is rs follows:
First case-$3.75.
Second case-$13.12.
Thru case-$37.5J.
Fourth case--$45 10 s95.
You will note that while the farmer
is standing a loss in each case the
terminal buyer is receiving an actual
profit in each case after deducting the
actual loss he has sustained on account
of the weed seed and Objectionable
matter.
Why not have a law like Minnesota,
which is as I understand it. they clean
the seed out and are compelled to de-
stroy the seeds docking the shipper
for the actual amount cleaned out. This
law instead of the present ruling would
save the farmers of Kansas good
many Thousand dollars.
The loss to the farmer under the
Minnesota law in the above cases
would be as follows:
First case-$4.25 Instead of 70.
Second case-S6.3s instead Of $40 to
$15.
Third case-sS.50 instead of $40.
F'outh case-s17 instead of SO to SloO,
and in addition this would result IN
the destruction of millions IF weed
seeds and prevent in q large measure
the reseeding of weeds each year.
THAD L, HOFFMAN.