Category Archives: Uncategorized

Articles that awaiting categorization.

A 1954 Case Model SC with Foot Clutch and Eagle-Hitch Options Farming in York County, Pennsylvania

A Case Model SC Tractor with Serial Number and with the Optional Foot Clutch and the Optional Eagle-Hitch

by

Brian Wayne Wells

This article remains under construction. Periodically new  blocks of text and media may appear an/or the present blocks of text will be modified or corrected.

York County, Pennsylvania, is located on the southern boundary of the State of Pennsylvania is sandwiched between two other better-known counties, both also located on the southern Pennsylvania border. Adjacent to York County on the east, along the southern border of Pennsylvania is Landcaster County. The Susquehanna River forms the eastern border of York County with Landcaster County.

Lancaster County is the traditional “Pennsylvania Dutch” area of the state and has traditionally been the home of the largest historically Amish and Mennonite colonies in the United States of America. Adjacent to the west side of York County, along the southern boundary of Pennsylvania is Adams County. The county seat of Adams County is the small city of Gettysburg, location of the famous 1863 battle of the United States Civil War. Indeed the Battle of Gettysburg was the famous turning point battle of the United States Civil War (1861 through 1865).

Both Lancaster and Adams Counties are much better known to the general public than York County because of the great number of tourists who visit both Gettysburg and the Pennsylvania Dutch area. In comparison, York County, has few if any comparable tourist attractions like its two neighboring counties.

McCormick-Deering Model 33A Tractor-Mounted Power Loader

McCormick-Deering Model 33A

Tractor-Mounted Power Loader

by

Brian Wayne Wells

  This article remains under construction.  Periodically, new blocks of text will appear in the article and/or  current blocks of text will be corrected.

The Farmall Model 300 which bears the Serial Number 22368 is the subject of another article in this website called “The Farmall Model 300 Tractor.” As noted at the end of that article No. 22368 when the tractor was sold to Wells Family Tractors in the Spring of 2018, the tractor was sold to with the a McCormick-Deering Model 33A power loader mounted on the tractor. This Model 33A loader is the subject of the present article.

As noted, in another article on this website called “The 1955 Farmall Model 300 Tractor bearing the Serial Number 22368,” when this Model 300 tractor was sold to Wells Family Tractors Inc. in the spring of 2018, No. 22368  was fitted with a mounted McCormick-Deering Model 33A tractor loader.  This loader probably was not mounted on the tractor at the time of its initial purchase in 1955 from the International Harvester Company dealership in Chaska, Minnesota.  Rather, the loader must have been purchased and mounted on the No. 22368 at a later date.  The loader mounted on No. 22368 is identified by decals on the lifting arms as a Model 33A loader. 

The original factory installed decals on the McCormick-Deering Model 33A loader mounted on No. 22368.

Some time prior to the introduction of the Model 33A power loader, the International Harvester Company had manufactured an earlier power tractor loader called the Model 33 tractor-mounted power loader.  The hydraulic controlled tractor mounted power loader had really only come into its own in the period of time since the Second World War. technological Farm equipment manufacturers were just leaning about the However, the Model 33 was not successful in field operations because it was an extremely light loader–too light for most of the jobs that farmers found for the loader on their farms.

and was not a successful power loader looked nothing like the loader shown on the cover of the the piece of advertising literature shown below.  The loader pictured on the cover is much improved over the Model 33.  Indeed it is an exact duplicate of the heavier, more rugged  Model 33A loader.  The fact that the loader is mounted on a Farmall Model 350 wide-front tractor, suggests that the Model 33A loader must have replaced the Model 33 at a time concurrent with introduction of the Farmall Model 350 and Model 450 tractors.

The advertising booklet pictured above purports to feature the “Model 33” loader. However, the loader pictured is actually a Model 33A which was introduced to replace the much lighter Model 33 loader.  The Model 33 looked much different than the 33A.  Rather than being a piece of literature advertising the Model 33, it seems that this is a piece of literature is introducing the Model 33A loader to the farming public.  It just seems that McCormick-Deering was intending on introducing the new loader pictured here as a “new improved” Model 33 loader and only later decided to designate the new  model loader as the Model 33A  to avoid confusion because of the great number changes between the Model 33 and the Model 33A.  This piece of literature supports the thought that the Model 33A loader was introduced during the short production run of the 350 and 450 tractors from the late fall of 1956 until the late summer of 1958.   

 

In addition to being independent hydraulic cylinders on either side of the Model 33A loader controlled by the inside lever of the three hydraulic control levers on the right side of the dash board on the operator’s platform.  The hydraulic cylinders were also “two-way” cylinders.  This means that the cylinders on the arms of the loader can apply pressure and power in both directions–when contracting as well as when extending.  Lifting the loader is effected by pulling back on the “inside” hydraulic ed, above, when purchased in the spring of 2018, No. 22368  was fitted with a mounted McCormick-Deering Model 33A tractor loader.  This loader probably was not mounted on the tractor at the time of its initial purchase in 1955 from the International Harvester Company dealership in Chaska, Minnesota.  Rather, the loader must have been was mounted on the No. 22368 at a later date.  The loader mounted on No. 22368 is identified by decals on the lifting arms as a Model 33A loader. 

 

 

 

There was a Model 33 tractor-mounted power loader.  However, the Model 33 was an extremely light loader and looked nothing like the loader shown on the cover of the the piece of advertising literature shown below.  The loader pictured on the cover is much improved over the Model 33.  Indeed it is an exact duplicate of the heavier, more rugged  Model 33A loader.  The fact that the loader is mounted on a Farmall Model 350 wide-front tractor, suggests that the Model 33A loader must have replaced the Model 33 at a time concurrent with introduction of the Farmall Model 350 and Model 450 tractors.       

 

 

The advertising booklet pictured above purports to feature the “Model 33” loader. However, the loader pictured is actually a Model 33A which was introduced to replace the much lighter Model 33 loader.  The Model 33 looked much different than the 33A.  Rather than being a piece of literature advertising the Model 33, it seems that this is a piece of literature is introducing the Model 33A loader to the farming public.  It just seems that McCormick-Deering was intending on introducing the new loader pictured here as a “new improved” Model 33 loader and only later decided to designate the new  model loader as the Model 33A  to avoid confusion because of the great number changes between the Model 33 and the Model 33A.  This piece of literature supports the thought that the Model 33A loader was introduced during the short production run of the 350 and 450 tractors from the late fall of 1956 until the late summer of 1958.   

 

 

 

Once the Model 33A loader was introduced, International Harvester continued to make improvements to the loader in a never ending attempt to strengthen the loader.  One of the features of the early style Model 33A  In  particular, while the early style of Model 33A had a segmented arrangement of supports between the upper rail and the lower rail of each arm on the loader.  The loader pictured on the cover of the advertising literature shown above, has the segmented reinforcement between the upper and lower rails on the arms of the loader arms.  Clearly this is a very early version of the Model 33A power loader.  Later versions of the Model 33A had a single piece reinforcement over the whole space between the upper and lower rails of the loader arms, rather than just intermittent segments of reinforcement.  

 

 

The late style Model 33a loader featuring the single piece reinforcement of the entire space between the upper and lower beams on the arms on either side of the loader..

 

The style of Model 33A loader mounted on No. 22368 was one these later manufactured 33A loaders which featured the single piece reinforcement over the whole space between the upper and lower rails of the arms on each side of the loader.  This single piece reinforcement of the entire space between the upper and lower beams on the arms of the loader appears to be a feature that distinguishes the later 33A loaders from the earlier Model 33A loaders with the segemented style of reinforcement.  .  

 

 

The upper and lower support bars on the arms of the McCormick Deering Model 33A power loader are connected with a single piecwe of metal–indicating that this loader mounted on No. 22368 is a late styled Model 33A power. loader. .

 

The advertising picture below shows a brand new McCormick-Deering Model 201 manure spreader being loader with manure for the first time.  The manure spreader is hitched to a Model 350 Farmall tractor.  Loading the manure into the spreader is a Model 450 Farmall tractor with a early style Model 33A loader with the segmented form of reinforcement between the upper and lower rails on the arms of the loader.  This is further evidence of the  contention that the Model 33A loader was introduced during the production run of the Model 350 and Model 450 tractors, between the late autumn of 1956 and the late summer of 1958.

 

This picture of a brand new manure spreader being loaded with manure for the first time is clearly a promotional picture taken by the International Harvester Company.  The picture is important because it shows the early style Model 33A tractor loader mounted on a new Farmall Model 450 tractor. This suggests that the Model 33A tractor loader was introduced during the production run of the Model 450 and Model 350 tractors from the late autumn of 1956 through the,late summer of 1958.

Installation of the Model 33A loader on No. 22368 well after the tractor’s initial purchase in 1955, suggests that the tractor was being prepared for a career as a loader tractor.  However, neither the tractor nor the loader bear any signs of excess wear or even normal use.

No. 22368 appears to be a tractor that has hardly been used by the time the tractor was later purchased in about 2000 by David Falk of Waconia, Minnesota. When No, 22368 was sold to Brian     of  LeSueur, Minnesota.  As noted above, Wells Family Tractors, purchased No. 22368 from Wayne Schwartz in the summer of 2018 complete with its McCormick-Deering Model 33A tractor power loader.  The intent was to use No. 22368 and its mounted farm loader, as a utility tractor around the Wells Family Tractor warehouse located in LeSueur, Minnesota, for, among other tasks, loading steel-wheeled plows and other heavy steel-wheeled farm machinery on a trailer to be transported to the LeSueur Pioneer Power in rural LeSueur community.  For this type of large scale fork lift type of work a hydraulically powered loader bucket was a requirement.  However, the particular Model 33A power loader mounted on No. 22368 was fitted with a “dump-style” bucket intended for cleaning manure from a barn and dumping it into a manure spreader.

Research by Mark Wells revealed that a hydraulic cylinder,  supports and hydraulic hoses were available as part of an optional power bucket for the Model 33A farm tractor loader.  Further, research by Mark Wells on Craig’s List found that another Model 33A tractor power loader with the optional power bucket was for sale at a location on the shore of Mille Lac Lake, near the small town of Isle, Minnesota.  This loader was owned by David Steve Martin of Champlin, Minnesota (2010 pop. 23,089).  Although living in Champlin, Minnesota David had a piece of land on the shores of Mille Lacs Lake near Isle, Minnesota (2010 pop. 751).  On this property David  kept several Farmall tractors including quite a few Famall H’s.  Nearly all of these Farmalls are in running order as David proved by starting nearlt akl of them quite easily during the short amount of time that the current author was in on his property. 

To pickup the loader and bring it back to LeSueur, the current author determined that it would be most easily done by taking the 1951 Farmall H’s owned by Wells Family Tractors to David’s property in Isle and partially mounting the loader on the rear axle housings of that tractor and then backing the tractor around toward the and then pulling the tractor and loader up on to the bed-over wheels trailer with the winch on the trailor towed behind the current author’s pickup truck.

 

 

 

Accordingly, one July day in 2018, the current author hitched up the trailer to his pickup truck and loaded up the 1951 Famall H bearing the serial number 375596 onto the trailer.  The current author got off early in the morning and found David and was guided to his property by periodic conversations over the cell phone. Arriving early in the town of Isle, the author found that the cloudy weather and periodic breezes while threating rain did keep the July day rather coolish considering the month. 

 

The early style Model 33A McCormick-Deering tractor tractor loader on the ground of the property of David Steve Martin located in Isle, Minnesota on the shore of Mille Lac Lake. The hydraulic cylinder attached to the bucket of the loader can easily be seen in this picture.  Although one of the early style loaders this particular loader is, nonetheless, fitted with the optional hydraulic cylinder on the bucket.  It was this feature that attracted Mark Wells and the current author to this loader. They wished to move the bucket cylinder to the later style 33A tractor loader that they already had purchased along with No.     

   

The author was able to get the loader attached to the rear axles housings of the Farmall H bearing the serial number 375596. after pulling the  After talking with David Steve Martin over the phone the current author drove to Mille Lacing not fitted with a hydraulically powered for this ther heavy tfor  In from    ,

The Farmall Super C which bears the Serial Number

by

Brian Wayne Wells

           This article remains under construction.  Periodically, new blocks of text will appear in the article and/or  current blocks of text will be corrected.

The Super C purchased by late Ambrose Holicky is seen being driven by his son, Howard Holicky. Howard restored the Super C that was first and fitted the tractor with the same number of wheel weights that were mounted on the Super C which was tested at the University of Nebraska on and with the , e here plowing the field in the

In 1954 Ambrose Holicky had been farming since he returned home to LeSueur County from the Second World War. As noted in an earlier article in this an earlier article, in 1953 he had purchased a new 1953 Super M Farmall from the Charles Clark Implement dealership in Cleveland, Minnesota. This was Ambrose Holicky’s main tractor on the farm. (See the article included in this website called “Charles Cook Implement Dealership in Cleveland, Minnesota: The 1953 Super M purchased by Ambrose Holicky.”)

By 1959, he had two sons that were now of age to help him on the farm and as a result he needed a a second tractor. Attending auctions in the LeSueur County area, he eventually found a 1952 Super C and bid on the tractor and ended up as the owner of the tractor.

Charles Cook International Harvester Dealership in Cleveland Minnesota and the Ambrose Holicky Super M bearing the Serial Number 32096

Charles Cook International  Harvester Dealership of Cleveland, Minnesota and the Super M bearing the Serial Number 32096

by

Brian Wayne Wells

           This article remains under construction.  Periodically, new blocks of text will appear in the article and/or  current blocks of text will be corrected. 

 For a large part of the long production reign of the famous Farmall M from 1939 until 1952, the Model M had been over shadowed by the larger sales of the smaller  Farmall Model H.  Both of these tractors had been introduced in 1939.  Their production lines had been parallel to each other in the Farmall Works in Rock Island, Illinois.  However, each year, The Model H outsold the Model M until just after the Second World War.

Part of the reason for this rise in the popularity of the Farmall M was the influence of the returning veterans from the Second World War.  In large numbers, these veterans were returning home from the horrors of war and wanting to settle in to the peacetime activities and peacetime economy of the United States.  Since, the United States was still a rural and farming nation after the war, the thoughts of these veterans was directed towards returning to the farm and either continuing the family farm or starting a new farming operation.  One of these returning veterans was Ambrose Holicky.

The Super C purchased by late Ambrose Holicky is seen being driven by his son, Howard Holicky. Howard restored the Super C and fitted the tractor with the same number of wheel weights that were mounted on the Super C for testing of the tractor at the University of Nebraska from May 31, 1951 through June 9, 1951.  In this picture Howard is using his Model 9 mounted plow to work up the sandy field at the rear of the the Wells Family Tractor warehouse located at 764 South Elmwood Street in LeSueur Minnesota.

Following the end of the Korean War, a slight boom in the sales of farm machinery occurred.  This boom as it applies to the sales of the new Farmall Super M tractors is discussed in the article called ” M. & W. Company (Part II): The Clark-Christenson Super M” that was published in the January/February 1998 issue of Belt Pulley Magazine.  This article has also been re-published on this website under the same title.  The Clark-Christenson Super M bears the Serial Number of 31634 and is currently owned by Wells Family Tractors L.LC. and has been pretty much adopted by the sister of the current author–Eileen Wells, who also serves as the Secretary of the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association.

The article on the Clark-Christenson tractor contained at this website provides the story of the original sale of #31634 by Srsen Implement of Blooming Prairie, Minnesota to George Clark a local farmer in the Claremont, Minnesota community and the later sale of the same tractor to Ray Christenson in 1967.

A total of 39,401 Farmall Super M tractors were produced in 1953.  No. 31634 was most likely produced on Friday June 26, 1953.  As developed in the article on the Clark-Christenson tractor, unusual events surrounding the shortage of Super Ms at various dealerships and surpluses at other dealerships meant that the Clark-Christenson tractor bearing the Serial Number 31634 did not get into the hands of George Clark until 1954.

Three production days later on Wednesday, July 3, 1953  another Farmall Super M came rolled off the assembly line at the Farmall Works in Rock Island.  This Super M bore the Serial Number 32096.  This tractor was only 462 tractors removed from #31634.  Like #31634, this tractor was also shipped from Rock Island to the International Harvester block house at  25727 University Avenue in  St. Paul, Minnesota.  Pursuant to the request of the local dealership in Cleveland, Minnesota, for a tractor to fulfill an order, #32096 was placed on board a railroad flat car of the Chicago-Northwestern Railroad train headed out of the Twin Cities on a

The Rock Island, Iowa,  headed toward the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.

Once at the block house on University Avenue in the Twin Cities, N.

The Barn on the Grounds of the LeSueur Pioneer Power Association

The Barn on the Grounds of the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association 

by

Brian Wayne Wells

           This article remains under construction.  Periodically, new blocks of text will appear in the article and/or  current blocks of text will be corrected.

The restored Almena barn was restored and rebuilt on the grounds of the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association.

In the spring of 2016 a new structure arose on the grounds of the LeSueur Pioneer Power Association.  This was a barn that had been originally built in the 1880s near the small village of Almena, Wisconsin.  The Village of Almena is located in Barron County in Wisconsin.  Indeed the Village of Almena is located on the  eastern boundary of the “Town” of Almena.  The word “Town” should not be confused with the word “village.”  In Wisconsin, the word Town refers to a piece of land 6 miles by 6 miles square.  In other states this geographical piece of land would be called a “Township.” Continue reading The Barn on the Grounds of the LeSueur Pioneer Power Association

Egg Raising in Dryden Township, Sibley County Minnesota (Part 1)

Statistics recorded with Counterize - Version 3.1.4

A McCormick-Deering Little Genius Plow at Work in

Dryden Township, Sibley County, Minnesota 

(Part 1 of 2 Parts)

 by

Brian Wayne Wells

(This is a new article that was never published in

Belt Pulley Magazine)

Mark Wells working with the Trebesch plow in the fields on the grounds of the LeSueur Pioneer Power Assoc. in 1994

The more a person works at restoration of an old farm tractor or a farm implement the more one begins to ponder the history of that farm implement.  One wonders, who originally purchased the farm implement.  What kind farming operation was the implement used for?   If curiosity is sufficiently aroused the person restoring the tractor or implement may start making telephone calls back to the person who sold the tractor and may start attempting to establish a chain of ownership of the tractor or implement back to the original owner.  However, the process of establishing the chain of ownership can be extremely difficult as time passes and memories fade.  Furthermore, when purchases of tractors and farm implements are made, as many are, at swap meets and/or auctions and when such purchases are made for cash from individuals unknown, the chain of ownership can be extremely difficult to reconstruct.  (Just how difficult it is to start reconstructing the history of a tractor when time passes is described in the two-part series of articles contained in the July/August 2008 and November/December 2008 issues of Belt Pulley magazine which deal with a 1937 Farmall Model F-20 tractor.)  Thus, it is often important to collect history of a particular tractor or implement at the point of sale or at least collect telephone numbers to call back at a later date.

 

The 1937 F-20 bearing the Serial No. 71355.

 

Such pondering over the history of the history of a particular implement was particularly true during the restoration of one particular McCormick-Deering Little Genius 2-bottom plow with 14″ bottoms.  (The actual restoration of this plow is described in the article carried on page 11 of the September/October 1994 issue of Belt Pulley magazine [Vol. 7, No. 5.  This article is called “The McCormick-Deering  Little Genius Plow” and has also been posted on this website.)  This particular plow was purchased by Mark Wells at the 1993 LeSueur County Pioneer Power Swap Meet.  Luckily, Mark Wells had written down the name and address of the seller of the plow–Larry Hiles of rural Arlington, Minnesota.

Arlington, Minnesota is located in eastern central Sibley County.

 

Contact was established with Larry Hiles in 1995.  Larry Hiles was living in Arlington Township in Sibley County.  The homestead was located just south of the village of Arlington.  This particular Little Genius plow had been discovered by Larry Hiles parked in the grove of trees that formed the wind break for this homestead.  The farm on which the homestead was located had been originally owned by Earl Nagel.  While living on the farm, Earl Nagel was actively engaged in farming the land.  In about 1956, the homestead on the farm was sold to Raymond Kraels, who was a rural mail carrier.  Raymond Kraels was not actively engaged in farming the land.  On July 12, 1974, Delmar and Bonnie Mae (Kopishke) Trebesch rented and moved onto the homestead on the Nagel/Krael farm.  During the years that the Trebesch family lived on the farm, they had a large garden.  The garden was so big that they needed a tractor plow to turn the soil of the garden at the conclusion of each growing season.  Accordingly, sometime after moving onto the farm, Delmar Trebesch purchased a McCormick-Deering Little Genius 2-bottom plow at a local farm auction.  This was the same McCormick-Deering Little Genius plow that was later sold by Larry Hiles to Mark Wells at the 1993 LeSueur County Pioneer Power Swap Meet and became known as the “Trebesch plow.”

Sibley County is located in the rich farm land of southern Minnesota.

 

As described in the article in the September/October 1994 issue of Belt Pulley, cited above, this particular Little Genius plow was fitted with 14 inch bottoms and originally had been a steel wheeled plow fitted with McCormick-Deering’s own “round-spoke” steel wheels.  However, the front wheels on this particular plow had been cut down and rims for rubber tires had been welded onto the round spokes of the front wheels.  As noted in the above-cited article, although the “furrow wheel” on the right side of the plow had been fitted with a rim for a 6.00 x 16 inch rubber tire, the land wheel on the left side of the plow was fitted with a rim for a 4.75 x 19 inch tire.  This seemed a rather odd pairing of tires sizes for the front of the plow.  If a farmer were having the steel wheels of the plow cut down to mount rubber tires on his plow, why would he not make the tires on both sides of the plow the same size?

Before the Second World War very few farm implements were sold from the factory with rubber tires.  Nonetheless, as noted in the 1994 article, the International Harvester Company (IHC) had been offering the Little Genius plow to the farming public with the option of rubber tires as early as the 1930s.  Rubber tires were not a common option on the Little Genius plow in the pre-world War II era.  However, during the “pre-war” era, IHC had a contract with the French and Hecht Company (F.& H.) of Davenport, Iowa, to supply rims for all the rubber-tired equipment sold under the McCormick-Deering name.  Pursuant to this contract, F.& H. supplied their familiar “round spoke” wheel rims to IHC.  When the option of rubber tires were requested on the Little Genius plow, IHC fitted the plow with a 6.00 x 16 inch tire on the furrow wheel and a 4.75 x 19 inch tire on the land wheel.

This followed the design pattern of the original steel-wheeled Little Genius plow, in which the land side wheel was bigger in diameter that the furrow wheel. The reason for this wheel configuration was that the land wheel was the wheel connected to the clutch of the plow.  The clutch on the land wheel was the mechanism that lifted the entire plow out of the ground when the trip rope was pulled at the end of the field.  Consequently, it was thought that a larger diameter wheel was needed to provide the traction and leverage necessary to pull the plow out of the ground in some heavy soil conditions where the surface of the ground was slippery.  This was the situation when plowing succulent green vegetation (green fertilizer) into the soil.  The land wheel rolling along on the vegetation could become slippery from the succulent plant life crushed under the land wheel.  Then when the trip rope in pulled the land wheel might slide along the surface of the ground rather than continuing to turn and lifting the plow out of the ground.  Accordingly, it was decided that the land wheel should be larger in diameter so as to provide more leverage when the clutch was engaged to pull the plow out of the ground.  As a result, the steel-wheeled version of the Little Genius plow was fitted with a 30 inch steel wheel on the land wheel side of the plow and a 24 inch steel wheel on the furrow wheel side of the plow.

The 30 inch steel wheel that was the original standard equipment wheel on the left side (land side) of the plow.

Thus, when the optional rubber tires were installed on the Little Genius plow at the factory in Canton, Illinois, the plow was fitted with a land wheel and tire of a larger diameter than the furrow wheel of the plow.  During the immediate pre-war era, the 6.00 x 16 inch tire was becoming the most commonly used tire on automobiles.  However, the 4.75 x 19 inch tire was also a well-known and popular size tire, it was the size of tire that was used on the very popular Ford Model A car.  Thus, the configuration of a 6.00 x 16 inch tire on the furrow wheel and a 4.75 x 19 inch tire on the land wheel became the standard configuration for Little Genius plows sold with rubber tires before the Second World War.  A 1941 picture of the showroom of the Johnson Bros IHC Dealership of Taylorsville, Illinois bears this out.  In the foreground of the picture is a new rubber-tired version of the Little Genius plow with a 6.00 x 16 inch tire on the furrow wheel and a 4.75 x 19 inch tire on the land wheel side of the plow.

 

Inside the showroom of a typical McCormick-Deering dealership in the immediate pre-war period of 1940 and 1941.

 

During the Second World War hardly any rubber was available for civilian use.  Consequently, IHC reverted to steel wheels on its new farm equipment.  Some time during the Second World War, the contract with F.& H. was terminated and IHC signed another supply contract for rims with the Electric Wheel Company of Quincy, Illinois.  The wheels provided by the Electric Wheel Company were “disc-type” wheels.  Thus, the “post-war” McCormick-Deering Little Genius plow becomes distinguishable from the “pre-war” Little Genius plow fitted with rubber tires, in that disc-type wheels characterized post-war Little Genius plows and F.& H. round-spoke wheel rims characterized pre-war Little Genius plows fitted with rubber tires.   Thus, when cutting down the steel wheels of the Trebesch plow, someone had done a lot of work to make the plow appear as though it came from the factory as a rubber tired plow during the pre-war era.

The left side (land side) wheel on the Delmer Trebesch 2-bottom plow that was fitted with a 19 inch by 4.75 inch Model A Ford car tire.

By 1974, when Delmar Trebesch ended up being the highest bidder on this particular “Little Genius” plow, the increased size of the average farming operation and the larger equipment used on the average farm had definitely made this two-bottom tractor trailing plow into an “antique” from a bygone era.  However, there was a time when this particular Little Genius plow had been a new object of attention for a particular farmer looking to modernize his farming operation.  Continue reading Egg Raising in Dryden Township, Sibley County Minnesota (Part 1)

Potato Farming in North Dakota with a 1937 Famall F-20 (Part 2)

Statistics recorded with Counterize - Version 3.1.4

Potato Farming in No. Dakota with A 1937 F-20 (Part II)

by Brian Wayne Wells

(As published in the November/December 2008 issue of

Belt Pulley Magazine)

Grafton Potato Growers Inc.: A major potato buyer of potaotes in Grafton, the county seat of Walsh County, North Dakota.

As noted previously, Walsh County, North Dakota borders the Red River of the North in eastern North Dakota.  (See the first article in the series called “Potato Farming in North Dakota [Part I]” contained in the July/August 2008 issue of Belt Pulley magazine.)  Because of its location and its light rich soils, Walsh County traditionally leads all 53 counties of North Dakota in the production of potatoes.  Indeed, some years, Walsh County produces 40% of the North Dakota’s total annual potato crop.  Walsh County is divided into 37 townships.  The townships on the extreme eastern edge of Walsh County that border the Red River are not the leading townships in the county in potato production.  Rather it is the “second range” of townships back from the Red River that are regarded as the best locations for the growing of potatoes.  Among this second tier of townships in Walsh County is Martin Township.

A map of North Dakota showing the location of Walsh County. The eastern boundary of North Dakota is formed by the Red river of the North.

 

As noted previously, Martin Township was, in 1936, the home of a particular farmer and his wife and two children.  Together they lived on a diversified 160-acre farm on which they raised potatoes as a primary cash crop.  However, they also raised spring wheat, corn, oats and hay.  They also milked a small herd of Holstein dairy cattle.  They had a chicken house full of laying hens and a few hogs in an attempt to diversify the sources of farm income as much as possible.  Consequently, a large portion of the arable land of their farm was taken up by pastureland and crops used as feed for the animals on the farm.  Martin Township was located so far north in the Midwest that the typical growing season was only 110 days long, extending only from an average last frost in the spring on about May  11 until the first killing frost in the fall on about September 11.  Corn which requires a 120-day season, does not, therefore, have enough time to mature in Martin Township.  This far north, corn is not a cash crop and is used as an animal feed on the farm.  Consequently, all the corn, raised by our Martin Township farmer was chopped green and put in the silo to be fed to his dairy herd.  Only wheat and potatoes were sold as cash crops.

A township map of Walsh county showing the location of Martin Township north of the county seat of Grafton, North Dakota on the northern border of Walsh County.

 

As the growing season approached in the Spring of 1937, our Martin Township farmer was reducing the amount of the acreage to be devoted to oats and hay on his farm for the coming year.  The reason for this was that over the winter of 1936-1937 he had purchased a new row crop tractor which would, eventually, replace the horses on his farm.  As noted previously, this new tractor was a Farmall F-20 tractor bearing the Serial Number 71355.  (Ibid.)  He had purchased No. 71355 from the Honsvald Oil Company in Grafton, North Dakota, the county seat of Walsh County.  (Ibid.)

An advertisement of the Grafton Implement Company, which formerly had been known as the Honsvald Oil Company.

 

No. 71355 was a tricycle-style tractor with a narrow front end, and factory-installed 5.50 x 16 inch rubber tires mounted on French and Hecht (F. & H.) round-spoke wheels in the front and 11.25 x 24 inch tires also mounted on F. & H. round-spoke tires in the rear.  Because the tractor had been fitted with rubber tires at the International Harvester Farmall Works factory in Rock Island, Illinois, No. 71355 was also fitted with the optional foot brakes and was fitted with the optional 28-tooth high speed road gear.  With the more common 36-inch rubber wheels in the rear, this optional road gear would have delivered a speed of 7.07 miles per hour (m.p.h.) to the tractor.

A Farmall model F-20 tractor configured with 24 inch rubber tires in the rear and French & Hecht round-spoke rims front and rear, just as No. 71355 was configured when it arrived at Honsvald Oil Company in Grafton, North Dakota.  The narrow front end of the tricycle-style of No. 71355 would provide our Martin Township farmer with the ability to perform all the field activities on his farm including the cultivation of row crops.

 

However, because No. 71355 was fitted with the optional 24-inch wheels in the rear, the speed of the tractor in every gear was reduced by almost 1/3.  Accordingly, the speeds available to No. 71355 through its four speed transmission were 1.575 mph in first gear, 1.925 mph in second gear, 2.275 mph in third gear and 4.666 mph in the optional fourth gear.

A Heisler step-up transmission mounted on a Farmall model F-20.

 

Because this range of speeds was painfully slow for cultivation and other light duty field work, our Martin Township farmer had agreed to the installation of a supplemental high-speed transmission to No. 71355, as a part of the original purchase contract.  The particular high-speed supplemental transmission installed by the Honsvald Oil Company to No. 71355 was the Model HT-2033 supplemental transmission manufactured by the Heisler Company of Hudson, Iowa.  (Ibid.)  The Model HT-2033 supplemental transmission added some very important working speeds back to the tractor that had been taken away by the 24 inch wheels.  These were 3.654 mph in high range of first gear, 4.46 mph in high range of second gear, 5.25 mph in high range of third gear.  Additionally, the new Heisler transmission added a road gear of 11.28168 mph to the F-20 for fast transport down the road when needed.  To be able to use No. 71355 for the most important of summer field work tasks, i.e. cultivation of the row crops, our Martin Township farmer had included the purchase of a Model 229 two-row mounted cultivator as part of the same sales contract with Honsvald.  Additionally, as noted previously, the purchase contract with Honsvald Oil Company also included the purchase of a new Model 12 two-row potato digger.

This advertising photo for the new Model 12 two-row potato digger shows that when the F-20 tractor is fitted with 24 inch wheels in the rear the tractor can pull the two-row potato digger. This convinced our Martin Township farmer to include a Model 12 two-row potato digger as a part of the purchase package with No. 71355.

 

Throughout most of January and early February, 1937, there had been accumulations of ten to twelve inches of snow on the ground.  However, unseasonably warm temperatures in early March melted the snow entirely by the middle of the month.  Now our Martin Township farmer had to wait for the soil to dry out and warm up.

Our Martin Township farmer knew of the old “rule” which stated that potatoes should be planted each year on Good Friday of the Easter holidays.  However, like most such rules, our Martin Township farmer knew that this rule did not apply to the “far north” of the Midwest where Grafton, North Dakota was located.  Most years in Walsh County, the last heavy frost in the spring occurred in early May.  Furthermore, he suspected that the old rule referred to potatoes planted in gardens in “sheltered” areas around the homestead.  He knew that the soil out in the open fields took a little longer to warm up in the spring than did the soil in the protected areas around the house.

In the spring of 1937, our Martin Township farmer was able to use the same Little Genius No. 8 two-bottom plow with 14 inch bottoms with No. 71355, which he had used the previous autumn with his old Model 10-20 tractor, to finish the plowing of his fields.

 

April, 1937 was slightly warmer than normal and so was early May.  The last cold night that even approached a killing frost occurred in mid-April.  Furthermore, the gentle rains that occurred throughout April and May helped warm the soil.  These springtime rains dried quickly in the light soil of his farm and did not unduly delay the field work because of wet conditions.  Accordingly, our Martin Township farmer got into the fields in early May of 1937.   He put the bright, red No. 71355 to work preparing seed bed.  Both the spring wheat and oats could germinate in soil as cool as 37°F while seed potatoes required a temperature of 42°F.  Therefore, our Martin Township farmer and his neighbors usually sowed the spring wheat and the oats before planting the potatoes.  By contrast, corn required a soil temperature of 50°F for planting.  Accordingly, corn was planted only after the potatoes.

Cutting the seed potatoes into pieces, by hand, so thatevery piece included at least two “eyes,” was a wintertime activity when potato plots were small. The pieces would then be placed in sacks to await springtime planting. Meanwhile the cut edge of the potato piece would “cure” to prevent rot. The sacks of potato pieces would have to be stored in the cellar of the house; warm enough to keep them from freezing and yet cool enough to retard early sprouting of the eyes of the potato pieces.

 

Cutting the seed potatoes into pieces ready for the potato planter was a job that employed the whole family and it was an ambitious job to be conducted each spring as planting time arrived.  The average potato might weigh 8 to 12 ounces.  After cutting the potatoes into pieces ready for planting, each piece would weigh about 2.5 oz to 3.75 oz.  In the past, potato growers and their families would cut all the potatoes by hand with a knife.  Our Martin Township farmer remembered that even as a small child, he helped his parents with this daunting task of cutting the potatoes for planting.  His mother would admonish him to be careful to leave two or three “eyes” on each piece of potato he cut.  “Don’t make dummies,” she said, referring to potato pieces which had no eyes.  The eyes of the potato were the locations on the potato where the spouts of the new plant would begin to form once the potato was underground.  Leaving two or more eyes on a seed potato piece would be extra insurance that the seed potato piece would still sprout and grow even if one eye failed to sprout.  Our Martin Township farmer’s mother used to joke with him as a child and say that the potato piece needed two eyes to see which way to grow.

Pre-sprouting of the seed potatoes reveals the locations of the “eyes” of the potatoes.

 

Once cut, the seed potato pieces would be placed in a sack and sacks full of potato segments would be placed in the root cellar where the potato pieces would be kept warm enough to not freeze in the winter weather and would be kept cool enough not start sprouting.  Additionally, the cut sides of the potato pieces would “cure” or “heal over” and the potato piece would be protected from rotting.

Seed potatoes laid out on a tray with holes in the tray. Air will circulate around all sides and edges of the potato pieces and heal over the cut surfaces of the potato pieces to prevent them from rotting,

 

He remembered that cutting seed potatoes by hand was a long and arduous task in the spring because the family would have to cut enough potatoes to plant 11,600 pieces for every acre of land they intended to plant to potatoes.  This meant the family would have to cut enough pieces to fill as many as 14 sacks of potato sections for each acre of potatoes they wished to plant.  Currently for the 30 acre field that our Martin Township farmer wished to plant to potatoes, he needed 420 sacks full of seed potato pieces.  Cutting this many seed potatoes would have been impossible for the family alone without hiring on extra help.  However, a relatively recent and ingenious invention made in the 1920s by a local boy, greatly reduced the hand labor of cutting the potatoes into sections in the spring.

g George W. French’s mechanical seed potato cutter dating from the rime of its invention in the 1920’s.  The mechanical cutting of seed potatoes into pieces ready for planting, greatly speeded the process of preparing for spring time planting, 

 

During the 1920s, George W. French, from rural Grafton, North Dakota, invented a mechanical potato cutter which would cut small potatoes into two pieces and large potatoes into six pieces.  (Lynda Kenney, The Past is Never Far Away: A History of the Red River Valley Potato Industry [Potato Growers Association Press: East Grand Forks, Minn., 1995] p. 123.)  The French potato “sizer and cutter” was a new invention that greatly reduced the amount of time that was taken up cutting potatoes for planting.  French’s potato cutter also “sized” the potatoes for planting with a mechanical potato planter.  Mechanical potato planters worked much more smoothly when the seed potato pieces were cut into relatively uniform chunks.  The French potato sizer and cutter did a good job at creating uniform chunks for planting in the field.

If seed potato pieces are stored in too warm of an environment, they will begin to sprout and grow before they be planted in the Spring.

 

Although the French mechanical potato cutter could not assure that every seed potato piece that was produced by the machine would have an eye, the process of cutting a great number of seed potato pieces for planting was simplified.  Thus, some “dummies” or “duds” would escape the careful attention of the potato farmer and his family in  the automatic cutting process and make it into the sacks of potato pieces that would be stored in the root cellar and may be planted in the field.  other seed potato pieces and would be planted even though they would not grow.  When the potatoes would sprout up through the ground there would  be a “gap” or  a blank in the row where the dummy had been planted.  Our Martin Township farmer began to expect and to tolerate these occasional gaps in the rows of growing potatoes.  He surely did not want to go back to hand-cutting the potatoes with a knife, just to eliminate all dummies.

 

The modern industrial sized and computerized seed potato cutter grew out of Henry  French’s simple mechanical seed potato cutter invented in the 1920s. and can produce seed potato segments of what-ever size is desired and will produce many less “dummies” than non- The computerized capability of this cutter will assure that there are many less “dummies.”

Continue reading Potato Farming in North Dakota with a 1937 Famall F-20 (Part 2)

Cotton Picking in South Carolina

Statistics recorded with Counterize - Version 3.1.4

Cotton Picking in South Carolina with a

John Deere Model 630 Tractor

by

Brian Wayne Wells

(As published in the January/February 2008 issue of

Belt Pulley Magazine)

            As noted in a previous article, Deere and Company had, ever since the late 1940s entertained great hopes that their cotton pickers would have the same overnight success that had greeted the introduction of the small combine and/or the introduction of the corn picker into the farm market.  (See the article called “Cotton Picking on the Mississippi Delta” contained in the November/December 2007 issue of Belt Pulley magazine.)

When the small combine was made available to the North American farmer at the end of the Second World War, there had been a revolutionary change in which small grains were harvested.  The small combine entirely replaced the stationary thresher in a period of a very few years.  Similarly, the introduction of the corn picker had quickly replaced the hand picking of corn and the stationary corn shredder on North America farms.

To some degree, the expected revolutionary change did greet the introduction of the mechanical cotton picker.  The cotton picker had swept the state of California by storm.  Although, in 1949, only 12% of the cotton in California was harvested by machine, this figure mushroomed to 35% in 1950; then to 52% in 1952; to 60% in 1953 and up to 67% in 1956.  Cotton growers in California recognized that mechanical picking of cotton cost only about $7.00 per acre, on average, as opposed an average of about $40.00 to have the same acre of cotton picked by hand.  As noted in the above-cited article, however, California’s experience with the cotton picker was not repeating itself in the lower Mississippi River Valley.  Statistics revealed that in 1957, while fully 67% of the cotton grown in California had been picked by machine, only 27% of the cotton of the lower Mississippi Valley was being harvested by machine.

Even more dramatically, cotton farmers in South Carolina appeared to be even more reluctant than the cotton planters of the lower Mississippi River valley to adopt the mechanical method of cotton harvesting.  Only 2% of the cotton raised in South Carolina in 1952 had been picked by machine.  This figure had risen to 8% in 1954.  However, since that time, use of the mechanical cotton picker had actually declined—to 4% in 1955 and 1957.  In last fall’s harvest, 1958, use of the cotton picker had fallen to only 1% of all the cotton grown in South Carolina.  Even those cotton farmers in South Carolina that had employed a mechanical picker in the past, now appeared to be reverting, once more, to hand picking of cotton during the 1958 harvest.

Still, despite the slowness of sales of the cotton picker in South Carolina, Deere and Company remained hopeful that the change to cotton pickers would occur in South Carolina.  Indeed, Deere and Company felt that 1959 might be the year when sales of mechanical cotton pickers “took off.”  The Company rationalized that the decline in sales of cotton pickers in 1958 may well have been the result of the recession that had gripped the United States economy from August of 1957 until April of 1958.  Thus, Deere and Company remained optimistic for the new year.

Cotton pickers continued to be produced in large numbers at the John Deere factory works in Moline, Illinois and the Company continued to send large numbers of the cotton pickers to their regional branch/warehouses in the south including the one  located at 5147 Peachtree Street in the Atlanta suburb of Chamblee, Georgia.  This branch/warehouse served the local dealerships in the southeastern United States including those in the state of Georgia and South Carolina.

The most popular cotton picker being offered by the John Deere Company was the Model 22.  The Model 22 was a single row cotton picker that was designed to be mounted on a narrow front-end—“tricycle”—style “row-crop” tractor.  The Model 22 cotton picker was only mounted on the tractor during harvest season.  The cotton picker could be removed from the tractor at the end of the harvest season.  Thus, the tractor would be free for other farm tasks throughout the rest of the growing season.

As part of the process of mounting the cotton picker, the cotton farmer was required to open up the transmission of the tractor and reverse a gear in the transmission.  This simple procedure would have the effect of allowing the tractor’s forward working speeds and road gear to act in reverse.  Once the cotton picker was mounted on the tractor, the operator would sit on special seat on the cotton picker above the normal tractor operator’s seat and facing the rear of the tractor.  The steering wheel, throttle, clutch and other controls of the tractor were modified and extended to be accessible from the new rearward facing operator’s seat on the cotton picker.  The same wheels that steered the tractor in its normal configuration, now steered the tractor and mounted cotton picker in its new configuration.  However, these wheels were now in the rear of the machine rather than at the front.  The large driving wheels were now in the front of the machine.

As noted in the previous article, the Model 22 cotton picker had been introduced by Deere and Company in the fall of 1956.  (Ibid.)  The Model 22 was designed to fit on any tricycle-style, row-crop version of either the John Deere Model 520, Model 620 or the Model 720 tractor.  The four-plow Model 620 tractor proved to be the most popular tractor of the 20 series.  During the two years of its production, 21,117 Model 620 tractors of the tricycle or row crop design, alone, had been produced and sold.  (Production Log of the John Deere Waterloo Tractor Factory 1929-1972, pp. 43-44.)  As noted previously, the Model 620 became the tractor that was most commonly paired with the Model 22 cotton picker.

Now in the summer of 1958, Deere and Company was introducing the new 30-series tractors which were to replace the 20-series tractors.  By October, 1958, the retooling of the Waterloo plant was complete and the factory was turning out 162.17 tractors of all models (Model 830, Model 730, Model 630 and Model 530 tractors) and styles (tricycle row crop or standard “four wheel” tractors) per day.  However, fully a third, or 31.2%, of all the tractors that were produced at the Waterloo facility were Model 630 tractors of the tricycle or row crop design.  (Ibid.)  Every day an average of 50.65 Model 630 tractors of the tricycle design rolled off the assembly line at the Waterloo plant. (Ibid.)

Although there were substantial cosmetic differences between the 20 series tractors and their corresponding models of the 30 series, the tractors, underneath these cosmetics changes, remained almost identical.  Once again, it was expected by Deere and Company, that the four-plow Model 630 row crop tractor would be the tractor most often sold together with the Model 22 cotton picker.  Accordingly, the Company continued to ship a large number of Model 630 John Deere tractors the cotton raising areas of the southeastern United States.

On Friday, October 3, 1958, two Model 630 tractors bearing the serial numbers 6301691 and 631692 were making their way along the final part of the assembly line in the Waterloo plant.  Both tractors were of the tricycle configuration and had gasoline-powered engines.  (Production Register: The John Deere Waterloo-Built “30”Series Tractors [Two-Cylinder Pub.: Grundy Center, Iowa, 2000] p. 71.)  At the end of the assembly line, the tractors faced their most important test.  The two tractors needed to start and be driven off the assembly line under their own power.  Accordingly, a worker at the end of the assembly line jumped up into the operator’s seat of No. 6301691 and switched on the ignition and stepped down on the starter button with his right foot.  Like magic the two-cylinder 321 cubic inch engine, with a 5½ inch bore and a 6 3/8 inch stroke,  popped a couple of times and came to life.  Giving the engine a little more gasoline by pushing the throttle ahead with his left hand, the worker shifted the tractor into gear and then grabbed the large clutch lever with his right had and eased the lever forward to engage the clutch.  No. 6301691 moved ahead smoothly off the assembly line and directly out of the factory building.  Right behind this tractor on the assembly line, No. 6301692 also passed its “test” and that same day both tractors were loaded up on a railroad flat car to be combined with an Illinois Central Railroad train which was headed east out of Waterloo toward Dubuque, Iowa (1950 pop. 49,671).  Continue reading Cotton Picking in South Carolina

Allis-Chalmers Farming (Part II): The A-C Model E Bearing the Serial #25606

Statistics recorded with Counterize - Version 3.1.4

The  Rinehardt/Christian/Boehne Allis Chalmers Model E Tractor

by Brian Wayne Wells

(As published in the March/April 2007 issue of

Belt Pulley Magazine)

This Model E is fitted with the “short fenders” revealing that the tractor is one of the post-1926 model tractor. Additionally, this Model E has been painted the new “Persian orange” color which the Allis-Chalmers Company used for their farm machinery after 1930. If painted correctly, this particular tractor is one of the post-1930 Model E’s.

            Minnesota’s Henderson Township is located in the southeast corner of Sibley County, of the state of Minnesota.  The Minnesota River flows along the eastern edge of the township.  The River’s meandering course forms the political boundary between Henderson Township and Tyrone Township, which is located in neighboring LeSueur County.  To the south of Henderson Township is Lake Prairie Township in Nicollet, County which is also adjacent to the Minnesota River.  Across the Minnesota River from Lake Prairie Township was Sharon Township another LeSueur County township that lay south of Tyrone Township.   Much of land area of these four townships is included in the southern hardwood forest on the state of Minnesota.  As such this area became the home of a considerable, if small scale, hardwood industry.  For decades settlers and farmers have felled the hardwood trees and sawn the logs into lumber to build their homes and barns.  Many local farmers obtained a small circular saw mill rig with the intent of supplementing their farm incomes with wintertime income sawing lumber for their neighbors.

A township map of Sibley County. Henderson  Township  is shown yellow  on this extreme right side of this map, which is the eastern  boundary of Sibley County along the Minnesota River. 

 

In the early 1930s, during what became known as the Great Depression, farmers in the Minnesota River Valley were merely trying to hang onto their farms and were not really worried about constructing buildings on their farm site.  However, as the economy recovered and things started to get back to normal in the mid and late 1930s, farmers began again to think of improving their farming operations by adding additional structures and renovating the structures they already had.  Six (6) miles southwest of the village of Henderson, Minnesota (1930 pop. 672), lived Rudolph and Ernestine (Doerr) Adams.  Rudolph (nicknamed Rudy) and Ernestine lived in the house in the country with their newborn (May 23, 1936) son, Donald Rudolph.  However, they did not farm the land directly.  Instead Rudy and his older brother, George H. Adams worked together to make their living from threshing the small grain in the neighborhood during the summer months and sawing logs and making lumber for their neighbors in the wintertime.  For threshing in the summer Rudy and George owned a Woods Brothers thresher with a 36 inch cylinder and a 58 inch separating table.  Like most threshers of the time, the thresher had a “self-feeder” with a band cutter and with a “double wing” extension fitted onto the self-feeder.  The self feeding mechanism had the capability of cutting the twine string around each bundle of grain and feeding the bundles automatically to the cylinder.  Previously, a crew member had been required to stand on a platform at the front of the thresher and cut the twine on each bundle of grain and “hand feed” the bundle into the thresher by hand.  The “double wing” extension of the self-feeder allowed two elevators attached to the self-feeder to be swung around and extended out at a 90º angle to the thresher on each side of the thresher.  The double-wing self feeder was designed for “stack threshing.”  As opposed to “shocking” their bundles of small grain in the grain field in “shocks” made up of seven to nine bundles each, some farmers of the neighborhood preferred to store their grain bundles in specially designed stacks built from the bundles.  Carefully, constructed, a stack of bundles could be designed to shed rain water and keep the bundles perfectly dry until threshing day.  These stacks were cylindrical and slightly conical in shape and were about 30 feet in diameter.  On threshing day, the thresher would be pulled up to a location between two stacks on a farm.  Then the wings of the self-feeder would be swung out and positioned to located over the center of the stacks of bundles on either side of the thresher.  Crew members then needed only to stand on top of the stack and load the bundles of the stack onto the elevator wing with pitch forks.

A double-wing style of feeder attached to a 36 inch Case thresher working on two stacks of grain bundles. 

 

To power and transport the thresher around the neighborhood, Rudy and George owned a 60 hp. (horsepower) J.I. Case Company traction steam engine.  Helping the Adams Brothers with his threshing and saw mill business was a neighbor– Henry W. (Hank) Reinhardt.  Hank and Irene (Delzer) Reinhardt rented 160 acre farm in Henderson Township.  There they lived and worked with their son, Victor.  Hank worked the land during the summer on his diversified farming operation.  During July and August each year he would travel around the neighborhood following Rudy Adams and the thresher to help with the neighborhood threshing.  Since the time when his son, Victor, became old enough to drive a team of horses, Hank would take Victor along as part of the threshing crew.  Victor had the job of driving a team pulling a water wagon.  He would hand-pump the 500-gallon tank on the water wagon full of water from whatever water source happened to exist on the particular farm where they were threshing.  Then he would drive the team pulling the full tank of water to the grain field where the steam engine was at work.   Then he would, again, hand-pump the water out of the tank on the water wagon into the 260 gallon “on board” water tanks located on the steam engine itself.  Once that tank was full, the water intake hoses from the steam engine would be dropped into the  opening in the top of the tank on the water wagon.  For a while, Victor would have be able to take a rest while the steam engine drew all the water it needed directly from the water wagon.  Once the water in the water wagon was all gone, the intake hoses were withdrawn from the water wagon and the steam engine went back to drawing its water from the on-board water tank.  It was up to Victor to hurry off to fill the water wagon again and return before all the 260 gallons of water in the on-board water tank was used up.  Victor was kept busy all day working on the water wagon just to assure that the steam engine always had water available for the boiler.

Case 60 hp. steam engine like the one owned by brothers Rudy and George Adams.

Continue reading Allis-Chalmers Farming (Part II): The A-C Model E Bearing the Serial #25606

The 1938 Rasmus Thronson Farmall F-12 Tractor

The Farmall F-12 (Part III):

The 1938 Rasmus Thronson Farmall F-12 Tractor

by

Brian Wayne Wells

with the assistance of

Elvin Papenhausen of Princeton, Minnesota

 As published in the September/October 2003 issue of

Belt Pulley Magazine

 

The restored 1938 Rufus Thronson Farmall F-12 bearing the Serial No. 121778 at the 2016 LeSueur County Pioneer Power Show.

 

As noted earlier the “waist” of Minnesota is the narrow part of the state, as it appears on a map.  (See the article called “The Possible Story of One”  Part I of the Loren Helmbrecht Tractor contained in the May/June 2003 issue of Belt Pulley magazine at page 28.)  The waist is located roughly half way between the northern and southern parts of the state.  Located in the waist, bordering Sherburne County on the north side is Mille Lacs County.  (See the above-cited article for a description of Sherburne County.)

A map of Minnesota showing the location of Mille Lacs County in the “waist” of the state.

 

This area of the State of Minnesota is where the deciduous hardwood forests of the southeastern portion of the State end and the northern coniferous forests begin.  (Theodore C. Blegen, Minnesota: A History of the State [University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, 1963] p. 11.)  The pine and fir trees of the northern coniferous forests spring from the same sandy soil that covers Mille Lacs County.

The pine tree forests of the Chippewa National Forest typify the soft wood forests that are spread all across northern Minnesota.

 

As described in an earlier article, the sandy soil of the area had made the area of Sherburne and Mille Lacs County a good place to raise potatoes.  Potato farming had thrived in the area of Mille Lacs and Sherburne Counties since 1890.  (See “The Possible Story of One F-12” cited above.)  In 1908, potato marketing cooperative associations began making their appearance in the State of Minnesota.  (Blegen at p. 399.)  In 1920, the Minnesota Potato Exchange was formed.

The potato washer located in the O.J. Odegard Inc. warehouse located 2nd South Street in Princeton, Minnesota.

 

Princeton Minnesota (1920 pop. 1,685) served as a marketing outlet for the area potato crop.  Indeed, in 1901 and 1902 Princeton became the largest primary potato market in the Northwest.  One of the major potato buyers in Princeton was  O.J. Odegard Farms Inc.  Although, the Odegard family operated their own potato and onion growing operations on their own farm called “the bog,” Odegard’s served as a major buyer of potatoes for the entire Princeton area.

The O. J. Odegard peat bog, shown here is representative of the agricultural land of the southern part of Mille Lacs County including Greenbush township.

 

During the potato harvest in the fall of the year, the Odegard warehouse, located on 2nd South Street became a major employer in town.  Potatoes were received washed and packed into 100 lbs. sacks and loaded onto freight cars of the Great Northern Railroad.  The Great Northern tracks ran through town, north towards the county seat of Milaca and south to the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.  The loading of the freight cars took place at the Great Northern Railroad Depot which is located at 10th Avenue and 1st Street in Princeton.  (This depot is now the home of the exhibits and library materials of the Mille Lacs County Historical Society.)  The potatoes were sold to wholesalers in Minneapolis.

The old Great Northern train depot in Princeton as it appears today.

 

Not only did Odegards hire on employees to work the harvest and processing of potatoes in the fall of the year, but they also hired on teenagers all summer to work on their hands and knees weeding the fields of their own farm in the bog.  This made Odegards the largest employer in the Princeton area.  (Taken from the manuscript called Memories of Princeton, Minnesota by Elvin Papenhausen.)

Princeton even developed into a market for the “culls” or unsatisfactory potatoes that potato growers could not sell on the edible potato market.  These cull potatoes were used in the manufacture of commercial starch.  On March 26, 1890 the Princeton Potato Starch Company was incorporated and a factory was built.  The factory was so busy processing cull potatoes that the factory operated both day and night.  Later a second starch factory was built in Princeton.   (From an internet document called “History of Princeton, Minnesota.”)

The Parlin & Orenburg factory located in Canton, Illinois, as seen in 1905.

 

In 1919, following, the First World War, the International Harvester Company made their first major corporate acquisition since 1904, when they purchased the Parlin & Orendorff  (P. & O.)  Company of Canton, Illinois.  (C.H. Wendel, 150 Years of International Harvester [Crestline Pub.: Sarasota, Fla., 1981], p. 31.)  Along with their famous line of plow, the P. & O. Company also had introduced a mechanical potato digger several years prior to the merger with International Harvester.  The International Harvester Company inherited this horse-drawn mechanical potato digger.  (Ibid. p. 237.)  In 1920, International Harvester continued production of this potato digger, with some substantial improvements.  The potato digger was called the McCormick-Deering Model No. 6 potato digger.  (Ibid.)  One of the improvements of the Model No. 6 over the prior P.&O. Company potato digger was the rod-link chain apron.  The potatoes would travel over the moving apron which would shake off all the dirt.  The potatoes would then be deposited on top of the ground in plain view for the field hands to collect.  (Ibid.) 

A McCormick-Deering one-row potato digger

 

In 1920 the local International Harvester dealership franchise in Princeton, Minnesota may have been held by the owner and operator of the local hardware store.  Starting in 1920, the International Harvester dealership in Princeton was able to compete in the potato growing market by supplying the area potato farms with mechanical potato diggers.  In 1921, International Harvester introduced the new McCormick-Deering potato planter.  Together the Model No. 6 potato digger and the new McCormick-Deering potato planter allowed the dealership in Princeton to prosper all through the early part of the 1920s.  Sales of farm equipment allowed the hardware store to advertise employment for a position of farm equipment sales person.

The City of Princeton, Minnesota is located in Princeton Township on the southern border of Mille Lacs County. Indeed a small part of the city of Princeton spills over into neighboring Sherburne County to the south. In this 1914, map of Mille Lacs County Princeton Township can be seen as the pink-colored township at the very bottom of the map. Additionally, Greenbush Township, where the Rasmus Thronson farm was located is shown here as a green-colored township at the bottom of the map to the left of Princeton Township also on Mille Lacs County.

 

In answer to the newspaper advertisement of the position of sales person at the hardware store an ambitious 24-year-old man by the name of Floyd Hall arrived in Princeton.  Born in Henry, South Dakota, on January 30, 1896 to W. K. and Grace (Henry) Hall, Floyd had married Eva Leathers on October 11, 1916.  Eva was also from the town of Henry.  In 1918, while still living in Henry, Eva had given birth to their son, Willard F. Hall.  Now in 1920, she was pregnant again with a daughter.  Marjorie Hall was born to the couple in December of 1920.

Floyd Hall in middle age.

Continue reading The 1938 Rasmus Thronson Farmall F-12 Tractor