The Ward County independent., 1922-10-19
Money from Screenings


There are still farmers who seem
to believe that because the grain
grading law was held unconstitutional
by the Supreme Court Of the United
States, they are losing large sums IN
not being paid for screenings as pro-
vided by the grain grading law. They
have probably never stopped to Inquire
out Just what kind of wheat they
would have to raise in order to bene-
fit under that law. The rules issued
under it by Senator Ladd, who was
then Chief Inspector provided IN
short that the elevator was to receive
9 cents for cleaning the wheat, ana
also part of the dockage as "shrink-
age" equal to or 3 per cent OF the
gross weight, depending on the quail
ity of the wheat. Suppose q farmer
takes 1000 bushels of wheat to the
market, and that it is docked 5 per
, cent, that is pounds to the bushel.
The total dockage on the 1000 bu-
shells would then amount to o,OOO
pounds. On the grade of wheat rails
! ed in most part of the state this year,
! the shrinkage allowed would probably
| be 2 per cent, which would equal 1900
pounds, this would leave 1900 pounds
! for the farmer. The rule also pro-
vided that the elevator man was to
make an offer to the farmer Tor the
screenings, which the farmer was to
accept if it suited him, otherwise he
| was to receive the screenings. Sup
posing the price of screenings is ~
cents per hundred, it may be little
more at this time or somewhat less.
But at 80 cents the farmer would re-
ceive $40 for the dockage on that
l,OOG bushels of wheat. And we must
remember that the elevator was to
have 9 cents bushel for cleaning the
wheat, which would amount to $4,000
for the 1000 bushels. That is, the
net loss to the farmer from the opcr-
alton Of the law and the rules on 1000
bushels of what would be $1460.
But supposing the dockage was 10
per cent, or pounds I. bushel. If the
shrinhage allowance was the same, 2
per cent, the total dockage would be
G00O pounds, the allowance for
shrinkace 1900, leaving 4,800 pounds
for th@ farmer, worth at so cents per
hundred, S14.40, leaving his net less
due to the operation of the law, $3.50.
In fact, in order that the farmer
might not lose money from the opera
tion of the law, his wheat must be so
foul that the dockage was s pounds
per bushel, or more. Is it any wonder
that while the law was in force the
farmers along the Red River hauled
their wheat into Minnesota where
they had no such law?
Now, suppose we figure on the TO-
tai wheat crop in the state this year:
1t is estimated at about 110,000,O00
bushels, perhaps a little more by this
time. According to newspaper re-
ports, Senator Ladd estimates that
the dockage will amount to 100000
bushels; this is probably only a
guess, but it will serve for the pur-
pose of illustration. If the dockage
law as enforced by DR.. Ladd, were
still in force, we should have:
Total crop ----llO,0OO,OOO bu.
Dockagc (Sen. Ladd's estimate)
Dockage (Sen. Ladd's estimate)
in lbs. 900 100000 lbs
Shrinkage at 21e-----132, 100000 lbs.
~-------0--rr-----4e8, r ,ooo, 900 lbs.
Value at SOC per cwt.---$1 ,404 100000
Cost of cleaning, &c per
| DuShel -------------- Z,ZOO,UUO.UU
Loss to farmer from
dockage law --------- 796, 100000
While theoretically it seems good
idea to have the elevators pay the
farmers for the screenings, as prac-
tical matter in the average year the
screenings from the crop of any
farmer who makes an attempt to keep
his fields clean will fall far short of
paying the cost of cleaning the wheat
at 2 cents per bushels, which the Non
partisan administration fixed as a
fair price for the work.
! ChasI F.. Evans, formerly a resi-