They’re funny and make good anecdotes at Sunday dinner but, due to either lack of time or lack of relevancy, they don’t make it into print.

As a great fan of the bizarre and absurd, I think that’s a shame. So, with another year behind us, here are a few odd stories I ran across during 2023.

The badger box

Tuberculosis researchers Fred Quinn and Liliana Salvador told me about this one in the middle of a serious and fascinating conversation about bovine tuberculosis and human health.

Here in Manitoba, we think of wild bovine TB risk in terms of cervids like elk and white-tailed deer. In the U.K., the reservoir species is the badger.

Those who watch the farming exploits of Jeremy Clarkson will know this. His struggles to combat the creatures were documented on the Amazon Prime series Clarkson’s Farm. Clarkson told British media company LADBible in February that, “When you get cows, the biggest problem you have are badgers.”

He described the animals as “evil,” “vicious” and used other adjectives that would require a censor.

The trouble is, they’re also a protected species in the U.K. and can’t be killed. So how do the British control them?

There are vaccines against TB, Quinn and Salvador noted, but badgers can’t be put through the chute and given a needle. The U.K. has tried infusing bait with the TB vaccine, but it’s difficult to ensure the right animals get the right amount.

In the U.S., there was a different idea. Some American scientists built a device based on the design of a live trap for foxes. The box, powered by solar panels, was outfitted to trap the badger, weigh it, produce a bit of bait that had been infused with the correct amount of vaccine, mark the badger so it couldn’t be vaccinated again and release it.

As much as I’d like to see a 24-hour livestream of this box at work, it was never used in the U.K. The effort was limited by the pandemic and the American government wouldn’t let researchers test it on American badgers.

It would also take thousands of boxes to vaccinate every British badger.

How to get your steam engine licence

As a Steinbach resident, I made a pilgrimage this fall to the Mennonite Heritage Village for its annual Fall on the Farm event.

As my family and I waited for the garden-tractor-towed barrel train to get rolling, I started talking with a nearby acquaintance. Her husband was there with the local steam club to drive the steam traction engine that powers the threshing demonstration.

I’d already taken note of the machine. It’s hard not to, being as big as some apartments and emitting a tremendous racket. Jokingly, I asked how he got to be the one driving that thing.

For those not familiar, a steam traction engine is what you get when you take a small, steam-powered railway locomotive, put it on a set of metal wheels and use it to pull farm equipment.

As per the Manitoba Historical Society, they appeared on the Prairies in the 1880s. Few farmers could afford to own one, so they relied on travelling custom plowmen and threshing crews.

Today, if you want to drive one, you must get a steam engine drivers’ licence, my friend told me. Yes, there is a road test.

I looked it up, and it’s true. The province (through its labour department, not Manitoba Public Insurance) issues Historical Steam Traction Boiler Operator Licences.

To get one, the operator must pass a written test, have 120 hours of experience on a licensed historic boiler and pass a practical driving test. No word on whether it includes parallel parking.

I later discussed this with Gordon Goldsborough, head researcher with the Manitoba Historical Society and a historian who works with the Manitoba Agricultural Museum. He told me that insuring one’s vintage steam tractor is quite the feat. He’d witnessed the process at the museum. Inspectors are apparently quite picky about things like loose rivets.

In retrospect, it makes complete sense that you’d need a licence. Steam tractors are huge, powerful pieces of equipment, for all that they generally appear at parades and harvest celebrations.

Nevertheless, I admire the dedication of folks who keep these dragon-like pieces of ag history alive, and when I can find the time, I’d like to learn more.

By the way, I’m told the Manitoba Agricultural Museum holds a yearly steam tractor course. Maybe that’s a story for the coming year.

The post Stories that didn’t make it into the paper appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The museum will be open on Fridays and Saturdays from 11:00 am to 4:00 pm. Individuals from vulnerable groups are invited to contact the museum to set up times outside of these hours to visit the museum safely.

To support Manitobans and provide them with an affordable recreational experience, a special admission price of $4 for all (free under 5 y.o.) and free admission to RM of North Norfolk residents until June 13 (ID required) are in place.

Our visitors, volunteers and staff’s health and safety are our priority. To ensure all remain safe, new protocols will be in place, such as asking staff, visitors and staff members to self-screen, requiring physical distance between individual, increasing hand-sanitation and cleaning practices and restricting access to indoors areas at the museum.

The museum team is excited to welcome visitors back on the grounds and to offer new opportunities to go out and enjoy the outdoors in a cultural and historical setting. As a museum, we strongly believe in the power of cultural organizations to support our communities. We are convinced that, in these difficult times, learning about our heritage, reflecting on our past, and sharing fun educational moments with our loved ones is more important than ever.

We also believe that the Manitoba Agricultural Museum is a great place to experience history while enjoying the outdoors! For that reason, we are committed to continue providing access to our collections widely, through online experiences, and by welcoming our guests in a new capacity.

“We are working on self-guided heritage trails, online opportunities to continue to reach populations that might not be able to visit us, and new small-group programming opportunities to offer to our guests when it is safe to do so! We cannot wait to welcome our visitors again!” said Anaïs Biernat, Executive Director – Curator.

The post Manitoba Agricultural Museum reopening May 29 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Dickson Henderson family of the Boissevain area donated several digital images to the museum.

One photo shows a pull-type combine set up to allow remote operation of the tractor from the combine operator’s platform. In the photo the combine, owned by W.G. Dickson, shows two of Dickson’s sons on the combine. The museum committee wondered — why set up the tractor to be remotely operated?

The combine is thought to be a Nicholas and Shepherd Red River Special pull-type combine with its own engine to power the threshing mechanism, a cylindrical grain cleaner mounted above the grain hopper, a straw spreader and what appears to be a canvas enclosure around the straw walkers.

The tractor is a McCormick Deering 15-30, introduced by IHC in 1921. For some reason the tractor’s hood has been removed, perhaps to keep chaff from being trapped against the hot exhaust manifold.

While remote operation was some- what common with grain binders, it is unusual to see this setup for a combine.

In the photo, a long shaft with universal joints runs between the tractor steering wheel to a steering wheel on the combine platform. A rope appears to work a lever mounted just behind the belt pulley, which probably works the clutch.

There’s another lever to the left, which was the subject of some debate. The lever might have worked the throttle, but as remote operation setup was a matter of the farmer’s preference, there’s no way to know for sure.

Two ropes drop down under the steering shaft. Perhaps one rope could open and close the throttle while the other may have operated a ‘kill’ switch on the engine in case the clutch rope broke.

When the operator wanted to move the outfit to begin threshing, they had to start the two engines, put the threshing body in motion, tie the clutch rope back so the clutch was disengaged, climb to the tractor to put it in the appropriate gear, climb back onto the combine and let the clutch rope out to engage the clutch to start moving forward.

Meanwhile, the operator would also have to advance the throttles of the two engines at the appropriate times to bring them up to power.

So why go to all this trouble?

The photo is dated 1943. With the Second World War ongoing, labour was in short supply on Prairie farms. Two of W.G. Dickson’s four sons, Barry and Archie, had enlisted in the Royal Canadian Air Force. His youngest son was still in school and only available to work on the farm outside school hours. While Archie appears in this photo, he was only home on leave at the time. Dickson likely needed a rig that he could operate alone.

But why not have a lone operator on the tractor? The combine’s sieves generally could not be adjusted while the machine was in operation and the concave was usually not adjusted on an ongoing basis.

The committee realized that the combine operator needed to adjust the height of the pickup header as the machine moved around the field to avoid missing portions of the swathed grain. The pickup on this machine was rigidly mounted to the header and there was no guide wheel on the sides of the pickup so the pick-up could not ‘float’ to follow the contours of the field. The operator raised and lowered the header to ensure no swath was missed.

Operating this lever from the tractor would require a complicated mechanism, so Dickson probably thought operating the tractor from the combine was the better approach.

According to the Dickson family, the outfit was set up for remote operation during the Second World War and operated this way throughout the war.

Whatever the reason, the operator would be in for long days in the August heat, with dust coming off the combine and the clamour of two engines running at full r.p.m. The only concession to operator comfort was the homemade canopy over his head. Harvest in 1943, even with this outfit, was a test of endurance.

The post Second World War-era photos show novel solution to labour shortage appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Charles Hefford Jr. was the son of Charles Hefford, who was an early resident of the Miami area. Charles’ father was a boat captain on the Great Lakes who drowned in Lake Superior during a storm. Charles’ mother remarried and with her new husband and family moved to Nelsonville, Manitoba.

In 1877, Charles homesteaded 19-4-6W1. In 1883, Charles married Jane Montgomery and began a family. Charles and Jane later sold this homestead and moved into Miami, however, in 1892 they purchased part of 2-5-7W1 which they farmed until 1921 when they retired to Miami.

Charles Jr. homesteaded near Oak Point, Manitoba where two of his brothers, Arthur and Bart, also homesteaded. Charles looked after his brothers’ farms while Arthur and Bart served in the First World War. After the war ended, Charles sold his farm and returned to the Miami area where he worked for a while as a weed inspector in the area attempting to control leafy spurge. Arthur and Bart also returned to the Miami area where they farmed for a number of years. Charles Jr. passed away in 1968.

The advent of plowing with steam engines posed significant problems as the first plows used behind an engine were adopted from animal traction plows. As these plows featured three bottoms at most and usually less than that, most engines had the power to draw multiple plows. How to hook all these plows together and keep them properly trailing behind the engine was a problem. As well, the engines often caused the plow frames to fail. The Cockshutt Plow Company recognized the problems and set out to design plows specifically for steam engines. In 1903, Cockshutt introduced heavy-duty three- and four-bottom plows suitable for mechanical traction. If a farmer needed a plow larger than three or four bottoms, the farmer could hook two or three of the Cockshutt units together by using what Cockshutt called a “jockey rod.” However, an operator was needed on each unit to work the levers to raise and lower the bottoms.

Cockshutt then introduced another new plow designed for mechanical traction, the engine gang plow. This design was soon successful and was copied by other manufacturers despite the Cockshutt patent on the design. The Cockshutt design featured a single frame and required only one operator. Cockshutt built a number of models of this design, with each model having a different number of bottoms. All models used identical mouldboard assemblies attached side by side across the angled rear of the frame. Each mouldboard assembly was a plow in itself and was hinged to the frame. Each assembly had its own depth gauge wheel, allowing individual mouldboards to float and follow the contour of the ground. As these assemblies were identical, if one was damaged the plow man could easily remove two hinge pins to remove the damaged assembly, take a complete assembly off the outward end of the plow to replace the damaged assembly and continue plowing.

The Avery Company, which built a popular line of steam engines, realized its engines were frequently paired with Cockshutt engine gang plows and convinced Cockshutt to sell Avery the sole distribution rights for the Cockshutt engine gang plow in the U.S., Mexico and Cuba. Avery sold the engine gang plows under the label of Cockshutt-Avery. When the Cockshutt patents on the engine gang plow design ran out, Avery began building the plow directly.

Avery made a significant improvement to the Cockshutt engine gang plow design with the development of a power lift system. This system was made available to Cockshutt and was fitted to both Avery and Cockshutt plows. This system allowed the tractor operator to raise and lower the plow from the tractor and did away with the operator on the plow.

It appears that with a number of gas plowing outfits, the tractor operator was also required to work the levers lifting and lowering the plow. This required the tractor operator to cross back and forth between the tractor and plow while the outfit was in motion. Turning the outfit at the end of the field would have been quite a gymnastic feat between crossing back and forth to steer the tractor while lifting and lowering the bottoms. The auto lift allowed the operator to remain steering while simply pulling, when necessary, on the rope controlling the auto lift mechanism.

The five-bottom Cockshutt plow in the collection has the auto lift fitted to it. The plow when donated came with a set of breaking bottoms for the plow in addition to the wheat land bottoms that are fitted to the plow. Breaking bottoms have quite a different shape to them in comparison to wheat land bottoms as they are longer and narrower.

This plow also demonstrates the evolution of Cockshutt design as this plow is fitted with a breakaway feature to prevent damage in case a bottom hit an obstruction. This simply consisted of a three-quarter-inch-diameter wood dowel that broke at a certain pressure. So if a bottom hit a large stone or some other obstruction, the dowel would break before some part of the plow did and let the bottom swing upwards to clear the obstruction.

The plow bottom was fastened to the main plow beams by a C-shaped short beam section which is held to the main beams by a bolt with the wooden dowel ahead of the bolt. When the dowel broke, the bolt acted as a pivot point allowing the bottom to swing upwards. The bottom could then be dropped back in position by the farmer, a replacement dowel inserted into the mechanism and plowing resumed. Previous Cockshutt plow designs did not have this feature, which led to damage being suffered at times by these designs.

The post The Cockshutt five-bottom auto lift engine gang plow appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

This declaration is still in force and sometimes rears its head causing bureaucrats, farmers and others in the grain trade to scratch their heads as to how this rule came about and what it means to the issue at hand. While the ink-stained wretches who write for the Manitoba Agricultural Museum can not address what this rule means in relation to current and future issues, we can cast some light, however dim, on how this ruling came about.

Readers will remember that the “no mixing” rule meant that when grain was graded it was to be stored in bins with only grain of that grade. No other grades of that grain were allowed to be mixed into these bins. This rule was in force during the early days of the western Canadian grain trade, finally disappearing in the 1940s.

Towards the end of the First World War, rumours began to circulate among farmers that the public terminals at the lakehead were making large profits from grain surpluses. The farmers believed that the only way the public terminals could make this sort of money was from violating the rules governing the terminals which included the no mixing rule. The farmers were not pleased with this development and the discontent grew to the point that the Government of Canada investigated the issue.

The investigation revealed that an important source of income for public terminals was “overages” in grain grades, that is after the port terminal had returned grain in terms of tonnage and proper grade to those people and companies that had shipped grain into the port terminal, the port terminal was still in possession of a significant tonnage of grain.

These overages occurred chiefly in the higher grades of wheat. Further investigation pointed out that the chief source of overages was the result of the dockage assigned to the grain as a result of “rounding up.” For example, when inspected, a carload of grain might reveal foreign matter from two to three per cent but the inspector would assign dockage of three per cent. While a small difference on a carload, over the hundreds of thousands of tons of this grade of grain that a port terminal may handle in a year, the difference would come out to a significant tonnage. And while the percentage of dockage assigned to a car was calculated to eliminate all foreign matter, it was known that the grain left the port terminal with a small percentage of dust or foreign matter even though the grain was deemed as commercially clean. Again, while a small difference, over the many tonnes of grain shipped out, the tonnage involved became a significant amount so adding to the overages.

As to why the higher grades of wheat consistently showed overages, this came about as carloads of higher grades of wheat were consistently assigned a dockage of one per cent when in fact the dockage was usually much less in these grades.

Investigation also showed further sources of overages came from shrinkage and from the recovery of grain from the screenings which were paid to the public terminals in lieu of charges for the service of cleaning grain unloaded into the public terminal.

While the government accepted the port terminals’ contention that overages were a normal, if accidental, result of normal operations, the Canada Grain Act was amended in 1919 to require the public port terminals to take stock of the quantity of each grade of grain in the terminal in August of every year. If, in any crop year, the surplus of grain was found to be in excess of one-quarter of one per cent of the gross amount of the grain received by the port terminal during the crop year, then the surplus was to be sold annually by the Board of Grain Commissioners, with the proceeds to be paid to the board and applied to the cost of administering the Canada Grain Act.

The validity of this amendment was soon challenged by a port terminal which had produced an overage that was in excess. This overage was sold by the board with the monies realized applied to board expenses. The port terminal took its case all the way to the Exchequer Court of Canada, pointing out that it had delivered to the owners of grain all grain inspected and weighed into their terminal so extinguishing the right and title of all persons in both the grain and screenings. So the remainder, represented by the overage, was the port terminal’s property. The port terminal held that the title to this grain could not be taken from the company by any legislation enacted by the Government of Canada.

The Exchequer Court of Canada judge, after hearing the arguments of both sides, held that the 1919 amendment was obviously meant to limit the amount and value of the grain surpluses earned in a crop year and was an attempt by the Government of Canada to regulate profits by public terminals. This attempt was in conflict with property and civil rights powers assigned to the provinces. So the judge dismissed the case against the public terminal as the 1919 amendment was not within the powers of parliament. The government then appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court which agreed with the Exchequer Court. The government then appealed to the Privy Council.

However, Justice Duff of the Supreme Court, in his opinion on the appeal to this court, pointed out that the Government of Canada could acquire authority to regulate a local work, such as a public port terminal, by declaring elevators as a work for the general advantage of Canada. An amendment to the Canada Grain Act in 1925 contained this declaration along with a re-enactment of how overages in port public terminals were to be treated. When the appeal to the Privy Council came up for hearing, the case was not argued as the appeal dealt with legislation that had been replaced by the 1925 amendments. The 1925 amendment was not challenged in court.

While the case dealt with public port terminals and this class of terminal is now extinct, the 1925 declaration remains in force and firmly places elevators, both port and country, within the power of the Government of Canada to regulate.

The Manitoba Agricultural Museum is open year round and operates a website which can provide visitors with information on the museum and the Threshermen’s Reunion, including location and hours of operation.

The post Grain elevators as ‘works for the general advantage of Canada’ appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

One reader has inquired about the origin of this rule, which is a very interesting tale. The “no mixing” rule meant when grain was graded it was to be stored in bins with only grain of that grade. No other grades of that grain were allowed to be mixed into these bins.

This rule was not imposed upon the industry by some far-off bureaucrat in Ottawa but rather it was agreed to by the entire western Canadian grain industry including the farmers and came about for two reasons.

In the very early days of the western Canadian grain trade, the terminals at the lakehead were public terminals and not owned by grain companies. Public terminals were forbidden to own or market grain. Public terminals were responsible for the safe return of grain to the owners of the grain stored in the terminals.

While the terminals could have stored separately the various parcels of grain placed into their charge, practical considerations ruled against this. Keeping separate the various parcels of grain, all of various tonnages and all with different and perhaps unknown shipping dates would have resulted in an expensive terminal system that was not fluid.

The cheapness and convenience of storing grain in bulk led to the idea that any entity storing grain in a public terminal would receive back grain of the identical grade but not necessarily the same grain delivered by the entity. In other words, if an entity delivered into a public terminal, Manitoba Northern Number 1 wheat, the public terminal would store this wheat in a bin that may contain wheat from another entity which was also grading Manitoba Northern Number 1.

The companies and individuals which delivered grain into the public terminal, marketed this grain and, when a customer for the grain was found by a company or individual, this entity ordered the public terminal to load a vessel to deliver the grain. While it may or may not be the exact grain the entity had delivered, it was the tonnage the entity had delivered and of the same grade, so minimizing disputes.

This method of operation also resulted in fluid port terminal operations. The system further evolved so that when an owner of grain at a port public terminal requested a vessel to be loaded, the vessel was directed to the public terminal at this port with an adequate stock of the grade of grain needed and that was best able to load the vessel regardless of which port terminal had stored the owner’s grain and had issued a port terminal receipt when the grain was unloaded.

Once the vessel was loaded, inspected and on its way, the port terminal receipts for grain issued to the various owners of the grain involved would be swapped around to regularize the situation. Fluidity of port operations was further enhanced with this method.

While fluidity of port terminal operations was important, a more important reason for the emergence of the “no mixing” rule was the belief that the interests of the western Canadian grain growers and of the Canadian grain trade would be best served by marketing properly cleaned grain of the “average standard of the grade.” The average standard of the grade required a no mixing rule to to be in place.

The “average standard of the grade” is not a term familiar to the modern grain trade and so requires some explanation. While grain inspectors may grade a boxcar of grain as a particular grade, this carload may show considerable variation in quality as compared to other carloads which also fell into that grade. Some carloads would have just crept into the grade while yet other carloads of the same grade would have just missed getting into the next-highest grade.

But the various carloads of the same grade would be dumped into bins in public terminals with no other grades allowed to be mixed in. Rail cars would be coming into the port terminals from all over Manitoba and the Northwest Territories and from grain companies and grain dealers as well as producer cars. So grain in a bin came from a variety of sources spread across the Prairies and could then be seen as being the “average standard of the grade” which then resulted in the grain being of higher quality than the minimum of the grade as defined by the Grain Act of that time.

The average standard of the grade emphasized to the grain growers the importance of producing grain of high quality by assuring them the reputation of Canadian grain to customers rested in the hands of the industry which included grain producers. The no mixing rule and the idea of average standard of the grade enjoyed support from the majority of western producers.

As well, other segments of the industry supported these ideas. William Van Horne, general manager of the CPR, wrote in 1892 that he held the manipulation (mixing) of grain at terminal or transfer stations to be wrong. He thought the practice of mixing in many of the private elevators in the U.S. was a source of scandal.

Van Horne also publicly stated that the only western Canadian grain that customers were interested in obtaining were the higher grades. Lower grades of grain were available to the customers from other sources which were closer to the customer and which resulted in lower transport charges to the customer.

The Winnipeg Grain and Produce Exchange in 1899 passed the resolution: “The exchange expresses its positive conviction that no mixing of grain should be permitted at terminal elevators and also no mixing should be permitted in a cargo shipment unless the inspection certificate issued therefore shall have written across the face, a statement defining the various grades entering into the composition.”

While the no mixing rule enjoyed support from the industry there were pressures on the rule. A significant issue with the rule was the problem of tough grain as well as grain affected with smut, rust and other diseases.

Under the rules in place, rail cars containing grain with these problems were graded at Winnipeg on their way to port. Once the grade was assigned it was not allowed to be graded at a higher grade, even when the grain had been dried or otherwise treated to address the problem. The volume of tough grain and grains with other issues was such that the first ‘hospital’ elevator came into existence in 1905 and others soon followed.

Hospital elevators cleaned, scoured, treated with lime or sulphur, washed or dried grain and in doing so improved the grading characteristics. With the no mixing rule in place ‘improved’ grain coming out of a hospital elevator was not eligible to be placed in a cargo unless the inspection certificate for the cargo noted this grain.

Few customers were eager to accept such cargoes unless it was discounted in price. This, in turn, meant farmers with such grain were offered correspondingly lower prices. In addition this grain had to be kept separate in the handling system which negatively affected the fluidity of the system.

To complicate the no mixing rule issue, private port terminals could do whatever they wanted with their property and were only allowed to handle their own grain so the no mixing rule was not applicable to them.

Between 1912 and 1929 there were a number of revisions to the Canada Grain Act of 1912. These revisions produced some ambiguity to the rules which allowed hospital elevators to legally mix grain. This resulted in private and several public port terminals changing their classification to hospital elevators.

A further revision to the Grain Act saw the hospital elevators change to being classed as semi-public terminals as again this type of terminal could mix grain. However, in 1929 after discontent by farmers the act was revised again with the no mixing rule affirmed but only for the top grades of wheat. With the emergence of the Canadian Wheat Board in 1935, farmer support for the no mixing rule weakened and by the 1950s the rule was no longer in force.

While it can be debated as to whether the no mixing rule was wise policy, the rule appears to have contributed significantly to the reputation that western Canadian grain, particularly wheat, built with customers in the early days of the western Canadian grain trade. This reputation remains useful in marketing.

In the early 2000s the Canadian Wheat Board found that it was a useful marketing strategy to bring up the old grade name “Manitoba Northern” as this name was remembered by the wheat millers and bakers of the world as representing a high-quality wheat that never let them down. Since the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board, the industry has been reminded of the need for quality as witnessed by the reclassification of various wheat varieties allowed into production plus current experiences in marketing grains.

The post The origin of the ‘no mixing’ rule appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

One of the photos shows a “prairie style” tractor breaking sod in 1913. Prairie style is a term applied to early gas tractors, all of which were large, heavy and borrowed design elements from steam tractors. The photo contains the handwritten caption “Minneapolis Kerosene tractor plowing on the farm of Duncan Henderson three miles west of Boissevain Fall 1913.” The man on the plow has been identified as Earl Henderson, the son of Duncan Henderson.

Earl Henderson was born in 1898 so he would have been 15 years old in this photo. Earl went on to gain a degree in agriculture at the University of Manitoba. He then returned to the Boissevain area and farmed in the area until the mid-1950s. Apparently he was mechanically adept, building a snow plane out of a wrecked Cessna airplane and modifying the steering of early John Deere tractors with the steering boxes out of Starr autos, in order to achieve easier steering. For many years after retiring from farming, Earl and his wife, Alberta, operated a lapidary shop in Boissevain, the first rock shop in Manitoba.

It is quite noticeable in the photo that the engine man has plowed straight. Given the crude nature of the chain steering common on tractors at this time, the engine man knew his business. In many other pioneer photos, arrow-straight furrows are also very noticeable. Probably a plow man who could not plow straight could not hold up his head in the community!

While the tractor was identified in the photo as a Minneapolis tractor, it caused some confusion to the interpretation committee, as the tractor had an inline engine and the prairie style Minneapolis tractors the committee was familiar with, had cross-mount engines. As well, the tractor had an elaborate cab and no fenders. The Minneapolis tractors the committee was familiar with, had simple cabs and had fenders. In this time period there were two Minneapolis companies active in tractor manufacture, the Minneapolis Threshing Machine Company (MTM) and the Minneapolis Steel and Machinery Company (MS&MC). MTM tractors are generally known as Minneapolis’s and MS&MC sold their tractors under the Twin City name brand. The committee then wondered which company the photograph label was referring to.

But after research, the tractor was identified as an MTM 25-50. The MTM 25-50 is the only MTM prairie style tractor with an inline engine. The committee identified the tractor after one of the members found a photo of a 25-50 in a recent U.S. auction sale bill. The 25-50 was not equipped from the factory with fenders while other MTM prairie style tractors had fenders as factory equipment after 1912.

The tractor features a fairly elaborate cab for 1913. The cab features a clerestory roof, a windshield and canvas side curtains on the side windows. It appears the windshield was also equipped with slides as the right-hand side of the windshield appears open. It appears the photo shows the Henderson crew plowing in the late fall of 1913, so the engine man probably appreciated the protection the cab would provide on a cold, windy fall day.

The Minneapolis Threshing Machine (MTM) originated as the Fond Du Lac Threshing Machine company of Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin in 1874 but soon went bankrupt. However, one of the investors in the company, a Mr. MacDonald, reorganized and restarted the manufacture of threshing machines under the name MacDonald Manufacturing Company. He was successful and attracted the interest of investors from Minneapolis.

They struck a deal with MacDonald to invest in his company but with the condition it move to Minneapolis, Minnesota. This move took place in 1887. Around this time the company became known as the Minneapolis Threshing Machine Company. In 1893, the company began to manufacture steam traction engines with an initial production run of 250 engines.

In 1908, MTM entered the gas engine business by selling the Universal Tractor Company’s (UTC) 20-40 tractor also known as the Universal 20-40. The Universal was also sold by the American Able Company and the Union Iron Works.

Around 1910 Walter McVickar of the McVickar Engineering Company designed the 25-50 kerosene tractor. Somehow MTM came into possession of the design, either they commissioned McVickar to design the tractor or paid McVickar for the design. Lacking a gas tractor-manufacturing plant, MTM in 1911 contracted the Northwest Threshing Machine Company to build the tractor for MTM. Northwest was capable of manufacturing gas tractors as it built the Universal 20-40 for UTC. MTM ordered 25 tractors in 1911 and 48 in 1912. By 1913, MTM had built its own gas tractor-manufacturing plant and began manufacture of 25-50 along with a 40-80 tractor of MTM’s design and the Universal 20-40 design. Steam engine manufacture continued through this period as well.

McVickar Engineering was active in this time period, and in 1909 designed a large tractor for the Joy-Wilson Sales Company, which was sold under the name Joy-McVickar. These tractors were built by the MS&MC.

Walter McVickar is thought to have been employed by MS&MC around 1912. MS&MC began to build its own tractors in 1910 after its experience building the Joy-McVickar tractors. It is also suggested in some quarters that O.E. Espy, who is thought to have designed the Universal 20-40 tractor, was working for McVickar Engineering at the time he designed the Universal tractor. This points out how limited expertise and knowledge of tractor design was in this era, so companies often obtained designs from wherever they could.

The story of the MTM 25-50 design also explains why the MTM 25-50 was so different from the other MTM tractors of the time. The designers were completely different people with different ideas.

Not much is known about the technical details of the 25-50 only that it was equipped with a four-cylinder engine with a bore and stroke of 6×8 inches governed at 530 r.p.m. and equipped with a jump spark ignition. The 1911 production came with a tank-type radiator cooled by an induced draft from the escaping exhaust. In 1912 this was changed to an automotive-type radiator, cooled using a fan driven off the engine.

The six-bottom plow is thought by the committee to be a J.I. Case Plow Works engine gang plow. This design featured one lift lever for every two bottoms, a tail wheel on the left-hand bottom and a second set of shorter levers alongside the longer lift levers. The shorter levers are thought to have worked the depth stops for the bottoms. The plow in the image features these design elements. While John Deere engine gang plows also featured one lift lever for every two bottoms, the JD design did not feature a tail wheel or depth stop levers.

The post Kerosene powered tractor appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

James Marshall McCrindle was born in Nova Scotia in 1879 and later came to Winnipeg when his family moved there. McCrindle then moved to Foxwarren in 1897 to work as a clerk in Laycock’s General Store. In 1900, J.M. took over the general store and operated it.

J.M. also served as the telegraph operator for the Canadian Pacific Railway in Foxwarren until 1905, when a station agent was appointed by the CPR. While this seems like an unlikely arrangement one has to remember that the line through Foxwarren was owned by the Manitoba and North Western (M&NW) railway until 1900 when this railway was sold to the CPR. The M&NW was in bankruptcy from 1894 forward.

Probably the M&NW’s bankruptcy trustees were operating the line as cheaply as possible so employing locals on a part-time basis made financial sense particularly as there may not have been a large volume of business for the M&NW to handle at the time in Foxwarren. It would have taken the CPR some time to get organized after buying the M&NW and as well the CPR would be determining which of the existing stations on the line had the potential to warrant a full-time station agent and telegraph agent. This may explain why it took the CPR until 1905 to appoint an agent at Foxwarren.

J.M. continued to operate his general store and was very active in the community. He played a part in opening the first bank in Foxwarren, building a rink, starting an athletic association and he served as the president of the Foxwarren local of the United Farmers of Manitoba. He married Agnes Leckie in 1907. She was born in Glasgow, immigrated to Canada with her parents then moving to Foxwarren where they operated a general store in Foxwarren in competition with McCrindle.

J.M. went farming in 1912 with the purchase of a quarter section of virgin sod near Foxwarren. He broke this land with horses. Later more land was purchased, again virgin sod and the Sawyer Massey 25-45 was purchased to replace horses in the breaking operations.

J.M. became a purebred Percheron heavy horse breeder and won numerous prizes with his horses. J.M. joined the Canadian Registered Seed Growers Association in 1940 and entered into registered seed production. McCrindle retired to Foxwarren in 1943 and his son continued to farm. Even in retirement, J.M. remained active as he served as councillor and then as mayor of Foxwarren for some years. He died in 1966.

The Sawyer Massey 25-45 tractors were somewhat common on the Prairies as we at the museum have seen a number of photos of 25-45s at work on the Prairies. The 25-45 is in the category of “prairie”-style tractor, that is the first round of tractor designs which borrowed heavily from steam engine designs as tractor designers had no other experience to draw on. The 25-45 borrowed many design elements from Sawyer Massey steam engines such as wheels, drive gears and steering gear.

Sawyer Massey was a major Canadian manufacturer of steam engines, threshing machines and other implements. Sawyer Massey was formed in 1892 when the Massey family bought into the L.D. Sawyer Company. While the Massey family was also a major shareholder in the Massey Harris Company there was no other connection between the two companies.

Sawyer Massey achieved sales success from 1892 to 1910 but the emergence of gas tractors by 1910 posed problems for Sawyer Massey. The Massey family felt gas tractors were the future however, the other partners in Sawyer Massey thought steam engines still had a place. The Massey family felt strongly enough about the issue that they sold their interest in Sawyer Massey. After the departure of the Massey family, Sawyer Massey changed its mind and moved into production of gas tractors.

Sawyer Massey designed and built the engine used in the 20-40 and 25-45 tractors. This was a major expense for Sawyer Massey. Records indicate the first Sawyer Massey tractor model built was rated as a 20-40 but it was discovered the engine actually turned out 51.85 horsepower on the pony brake which was a belt-driven dynamometer. The design was then re-rated as a 25-45.

The 25-45 design did evolve over time. The 20-40 and the early 25-45 tractors used a tank-type radiator in which engine exhaust was ducted into a stack on the top of the square cooling water tank. As the exhaust escaped upwards, cooler air was pulled into the tank and drawn upwards through the exhaust stack. Along the way the air was directed through baffles in the tank, over which hot coolant from the engine was being trickled. While this arrangement cooled the water, the loss of cooling water was substantial.

The Sawyer Massey 25-45s with the tank-type radiators also featured a trombone-type arrangement in the piping which took heated cooling water from the engine to the tank for cooling. This arrangement appears to have been installed to increase the cooling capacity. The 25-45 tractors built after 1912 featured an automotive-type, non-pressurized radiator cooled by an engine-driven fan. The McCrindle 25-45 features an automotive-type radiator.

Sawyer Massey also produced two smaller tractors, an 11-22 and a 17-34, using engines from outside suppliers. Sawyer Massey tractors were sold throughout Canada.

Sawyer Massey continued to build steam engines, threshing machines, clover hullers, saw mills and road machinery along with gas tractors. By the mid-1920s, Sawyer Massey along with other small manufacturers of farm equipment began to find it increasingly difficult to compete with larger concerns such as International Harvester Corporation (IHC) which were better financed, had integrated manufacturing facilities, offered complete machinery lines, larger sales organizations and could afford the increasingly expensive research and development costs associated with new farm machinery.

Sawyer Massey exited the farm machinery business in the mid-1920s and concentrated on road machinery. After the Second World War, the Sawyer Massey Company was wound down, liquidated and entered history.

The post The McCrindle Sawyer Massey 25-45 gas tractor appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

However, there were downsides. Producers had to have sufficient grain of one type and grade to load a car. While they could in theory load different grades into a boxcar, this meant “bulkheads” or walls had to be built to divide it into different compartments. As well as bearing the expense of the lumber, the producer had to pay for the increased loading expenses. Railways disliked bulkheading as it resulted in damage to the wooden sides of the car, and it appears not to have been common.

Other downsides included complicated damage claims in the case of leaks and potential demurrage charges if the car was slow to unload at port.

Once the car was loaded and ready to ship to a terminal, grain companies or grain dealers could offer to pay “track” price before the car even left the point. Track price was usually higher than street price as the grain companies or dealers knew the grain was loaded on a car and ready to move to port or wherever the customer wanted it.

Grain cars moving to port were sampled at Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton and the samples graded while the car moved to port. As the car passed these points and was sampled and graded, the producer could then be offered a “billed and inspected” price by grain companies or grain dealers. Billed and inspected price was higher than track price as the grade and volume of grain was known, plus the grain was closer to port than where it originated.

When the grain was unloaded and weighed into a port terminal, the producer could then be offered a “spot” price. Spot prices were higher than billed and inspected price as the grain was at port ready to be loaded onto a vessel.

The “street” price for grain was usually the lowest price available, making loading a producer car attractive.

The farmers could and did use commission agents and the commission houses of grain companies to assist with producer cars. These agents and organizations would act as agents of the farmer in disputes over grade and weights, or arrange storage and sale at port.

Many wagon loads

Against the benefits, the producer would have to consider the problems in loading a rail car at the time. Depending on the car supplied the producer would need approximately 1,800 bushels. The railways during the fall “grain rush” only allowed 24 hours for loading. Considering the average grain wagon could haul at most 100 bushels then seven or eight trips would be needed.

Obtaining a producer car was fairly simple. Each railway station had to maintain a car order book in which everyone wanting a car filled out a page. Cars were allocated on the strict order the pages were filled out. Producers were restricted to having one car on order and grain elevators to two. The railways operated a car distribution system which allocated cars on the basis of demand. At the time, railways operated two to three trains a week on most branch lines.

‘Public’ terminals

Several important factors facilitated the use of producer cars. Until the 1920s, most terminals were not owned by grain companies. They were “public” terminals and accepted any grain offered. They simply handled and stored grain. This situation began to change in the 1920s and many terminals became semi-public, handling grain owned by their company as well as handling others.

There was also a “no-mixing” rule. By 1930 this rule had evolved and was only applicable to the top grades of wheat. Once a load had a grade of No. 3 Northern or higher assigned to it, no other grades of wheat were allowed to be blended with it, either at the elevator or at the port. Wheat grading No. 3 or higher arriving at port was forwarded to whatever terminal had space, regardless of who owned the grain. Rather than actual ownership, the shipper received a warehouse receipt, which was a recognized financial instrument. The owners could deposit warehouse receipts with the Port Shippers Clearance Association and in return receive a Shippers Certificate which could be sold if the owner wanted to ship grain. When the vessel arrived, the clearance association assigned the vessel to whichever terminal had the necessary grade.

The no-mixing rule meant that at least for the top grades of wheat the ports were relatively fluid and shipping into a port one of the top grades of wheat using a producer car was fairly easy.

However, using a producer car to move wheat grading No. 4 or lower was more of a problem. The car had to be directed to a particular terminal to be unloaded with an agreement for handling to be arranged beforehand. Demurrage could be charged if the car had to wait for space to be unloaded.

The post When loading a producer car was a lot more work appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

This photo depicts a portable elevator filling a CPR wooden boxcar, probably sometime in the 1930s. The man in the photo cannot be identified — it’s believed he is not a member of either family and may be a hired man.

The portable elevator has been pulled up beside the boxcar, the leg elevated and the spout run into the car. A wagon has been backed up to the hopper which feeds the leg. A stationary engine can be seen behind the young man seated on the frame of the elevator. This engine powered the leg.

Also visible is a 2×8 plank running between the leg and the framework the leg sits on when folded into the travel position. This plank likely locked the leg in the vertical position. Given the large surface area the leg presents to the wind, such a lock would be a wise idea. Also visible is a rod that runs between the top of the leg and the frame. What this rod was used for is a mystery. One would not think that it controlled the flow of grain into the spout as shutting off the grain flowing into the spout would potentially result in the leg plugging. One was better off shutting off the flow of grain into the leg and letting the leg clean out.

Early idea

Portable elevators had been used well before this photo was taken. There is an ad for a portable elevator built by the Carberry Wood and Iron Works in a 1906 edition of the magazine Canadian Thresherman and Farmer.

The Carberry portable elevator was an elaborate machine which not only elevated the grain but also incorporated a horse treadmill that powered the leg and a wagon lift which raised the front of the grain wagon up to reduce the shovelling necessary to empty the wagon. The treadmill also operated the wagon lift.

The portable elevator seen here was comparatively simple. Grain was dropped out of the wagon box into the hopper feeding the leg. When the grain quit running out of the wagon box, it was time to start shovelling. A shovel can be seen hanging on the side of the leg. At that time scoop shovels were more than likely made of steel as aluminum was expensive.

In the book The Canadian Grain Trade written in 1932 by D.A. MacGibbon, he says that the railways only permitted the owners of portable elevators to use these machines in loading rail cars. They couldn’t be rented or borrowed by other farmers. He said the railways instituted this policy because too much use of producer cars would slow overall grain movement, especially when so much grain flowed to port in the fall before freeze-up on the Great Lakes. Railways came in for much criticism for failing to provide enough cars to carry the fall traffic. The grain elevator system with the grain it stored trackside allowed for more speedy and efficient loading of rail cars in all weathers which increased the number of trips to port the boxcar fleet could make in the fall.

Coopering the car

Both doors in the boxcar have had grain doors installed, a process called “coopering.” The grain doors were necessary to hold grain in the car as the sliding doors on the car were not meant to hold any weight. When the car was unloaded, one of the grain doors was pushed by brute force into the car against the grain far enough so that grain pours out. When sufficient grain escaped, the doors were then pulled out and unloading resumed.

Grain elevators kept a stock of grain doors on hand and when they ran low, the agent would order a carload of doors from the head office that would then see that grain doors were delivered from the stocks at the Lakehead terminals.

As the doors were made of plank, they sometimes were “diverted” to other uses. In many photos of elevators, there can be seen a stack of what appears to be lumber beside the elevator. This stack is usually stockpiled grain doors. Where the farmer here got the doors is unknown, however, it may be that the farmer here just obtained two from the local elevator.

As can be seen, the grain door does not extend all the way to the top of the opening so as to allow the grain spout into the car. In any event, a boxcar usually could not be filled to the very top of the car as it would then be overweight and damage the wheel bearings and axles plus railway bridges and track structures. In a wooden car such as this, there are lines painted on the inside of the car which show the levels which various grains can be loaded.

A broom can be seen beside the door. Probably the farmer swept out the car before coopering the doors. The farmer would also inspect the car for damage to the sides as grain could leak through any holes.

Wooden cars were prone to leak and the railways issued instructions to station agents and other employees to watch trains as they passed. If they saw a car leaking grain then they would alert the crew and have the car stopped and repaired. The initial weight of a car loaded at an elevator would be known and the railway would pay for missing grain. However, producers would not have a scale and would be in a poor position to make a claim. If they loaded to the interior marks on the car then apparently the railway would come to an agreement on any claim. It was probably better to closely inspect the car and stop up any holes.

To make the car tight enough to hold flax, the railway would supply heavy paper to line the inside. The paper came with preformed corners.

The opening above the grain door was useful for other reasons. Often when the loading was done, someone would have to climb into the car through the opening to level the load. As well, at this time, inspectors for the Board of Grain Commissioners sampled each car as it passed through Winnipeg on the way to the Lake Head. Grain cars moving to Vancouver were sampled at Calgary or Edmonton depending on which city the car was moving through. The inspector would usually take the sample through the openings. The sample was then graded and when the car arrived at a terminal to be unloaded, the grade of grain was already known. The car could then be rapidly assigned to a terminal for unloading.

The post When you needed a hammer and nails to load a car appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.