Seed Processing
in the
Willamette Valley
C. H. Greene
G. B. Davis
Miscellaneous Paper 81
October 1959
Agricultural Experiment Station
Oregon State College
Corvallis
This report deals with processing of forage, turf, and cover crop
seeds in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. The following are highlights of
the contents.
•
There are about 350 seed cleaning plants in the Willamette Valley.
Approximately 65 percent of these are located on farms the remainder are commercial plants.
•
Seed cleaning in the Willamette Valley is characterized by a small
number of plants doing the major part of the cleaning.
•
More common ryegrass was cleaned than any other seed in all three
types of plants.
•
Large amounts of unused capacity exist in the sample plants.
Mechanization in the handling of seeds has not kept up with the shift
to bulk receiving and storage.
•
The most conspicuous characteristic of the cleaning plants in the
survey was the wide variety of methods and equipment in use.
•
There are many different equipment combinations in use, but there are
only a few which are used widely.
Hourly cleaning capacities vary widely among the survey plants.
•
Docks and sorrels were reported to be the most usual contaminants.
•
Commercial and semi-commerical processors used three methods of charging for seed cleaning - by the hour, on the inweight, and on the
clean weight.
Sales to local dealers are the most important method of selling clean
seed.
Seed Processing in the Willamette Valley
C. H. Greene and G. B. Davis*
Introduction
In 1957, Oregon produced 184 million pounds of grass and legume
seeds, more than one-fifth of the total production in the United States.
The 1957 crop contributed nearly 17 million dollars to farm income, and
uncounted other income generated through processing, transportation, and
other marketing activities.
Rising transportation costs to major markets in the south and east
reduced prices for many western seed crops, and increasingly higher
quality requirements for interstate seed shipments Ire making it necessary
to examine all possibilities for reducing marketing costs. Seed cleaning
plants appear to offer an approach to this problem. There are well over
400 seed cleaning plants in the State, and at least 350 are located in the
Willamette Valley. Of these, approximately 250 are farmer-operated and
100 are commercial. The plants vary widely in their operating season,
size, equipment, and methods employed. These differences raise questions relative
to their efficiency.
A marketing research program dealing with the seed industry will
investigate these questions. It will consist of two parts:
a. A survey of the industry to obtain information on physical
layout of buildings and equipment, season's volume, kinds
of seeds cleaned, length of season, hourly capacity,
labor requirements, equipment and methods being used
and other information describing the plants and their
cleaning operations. This report is concerned with
results of this survey.
*C. H. Greene is Junior Agricultural Economist, G. B. Davis is Agricultural
Economist.
b. Results obtained in the first phase will be used as
a basis for selecting particular plants for an intensive study of their costs and efficiencies. Indus
trial engineering techniques will be used.
RESULTS
Of the 70 seed cleaning plants included in the survey, 32 were
classified as farm plants, 13 as semi-commercial, and 25 as commercial.
These plants were selected at random from the approximate 350 plants
located in the Willamette Valley (Figure 1).
Farm plants were located on farms and were used to clean only
seed grown by the owner, or to clean small lots of seed for other growers
without charge. The semi-commercial plants, also located on farms,
cleaned seed for other growers on a fee basis (custom cleaning). In
Some of these plants, custom cleaned seed amounted to less than 10
percent of the total season's volume, while in others custom cleaning
was the major part of their volume. The commercial plants cleaned
strictly on a custom basis, or in a few instances, bought seed in
the dirt to clean on their own account. Cooperatives were included
as commercial plants.
Size of Plants
Seed cleaning in the Willamette Valley is characterized by a small
number of plants doing the major part of the
cleaning. The top 25 per-
cent of the farm, semi-commercial, and commercial plants cleaned out
68 percent, 49 percent, and 56,percent, respectively, of the total
volume cleaned by these plants (Table 1).
Fi gure 1. Willamette Valley Counties, Showing Survey Area, Approximate
Location of Sample Plants, and Major Production
of Specified Seed Crops by Counties.
Key
----Survey Boundary
•Sample Plants
WASHINGTON
s
/ •
/
Production Areas:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Red Clover.
Hairy Vetch, Field
Peas, Crimson Clover.
Chewings Fescue.
Hairy Vetch,
Field Peas.
Bentgrass,
Chewings Fescue,
Common Vetch,
Red Clover.
Perennial and
Common Ryegrass,
Hairy Vetch,
Crimson Clover.
Perennial and
Common Ryegrass,
Alta Fescue,
Common Vetch.
Perennial and
Common Ryegrass,
Common Vetch.
/
/
YAMHILL '•
IV
1 POLK
I
11
I
1
VIII
/
.
. /
LANE
The largest group of farm plants were those with less than 50,000
pounds of clean seed, but they accounted for only 4 percent of the seed
processed by farm plants. (Table 2) The average volume for farm plants
was 199,344 pounds, ranging from 10,000 to 1,020,000 pounds.
Table 1. Percentage of combined output represented by various percentages
of the sample plants, Willamette Valley, Oregon, 1957.
Percentage
of Plants
Farm
Percentage of Total Volume
Semi-Commercial
Commercial
25
68
49
56
50
89
77
83
75
98
93
97
100
100
100
100
Semi-commercial plants had an average volume of 442,862 pounds and
ranged in size from 44,500 pounds to 1,171,500. The greatest number of
these plants fell into two classes, with four plants in each group.
group of four -- those in the 200,001- to 500,000-pound range-processed
24 percent of the seed processed by semi-commercial plants, but the other
group -- those in the 500,001- to 1,000,000-pound range -- processed
nearly 49 percent.
The largest grouping of commercial plants fell in the range of
1,000,001 to 2,000,000 pounds, though these eight plants processed
only 29 percent of the total processed by commercial plants. The next
largest group, seven plants, processed nearly 63 percent of the commercial
plant total. The average volume for commercial plants was 1,597,008
pounds, ranging from 10,000 to 5,210,800 pounds.
Table
Numbers of Plants and Volume of Clean Seed Processed,
by Specified Volumes, 1957 Crop Year
Season's Volume
(pounds)
Farm Plants
Plants I Volume
(number)) (1,000
pounds)
Under
50,000
50,001- 100,000
100,001- 200,000
200,001- 500,000
509,001-1,000,000
1,000,001-2,000,000
Over 2,000,000
Total
Semi-Commercial
Plants
Plants I Volume
(number) (1,000
pounds)
10
5
7
7
2
1
258
329
974
2,198
1,600
1,020
1
1
2
4
4
1
45
65
271
1,396
2,810
1,172
32
6,379
13
5,757
Commercial Plants
Plants 1 Volume
(number) (1,000
pounds)
2
26
2
4
2
8
7
279
1,513
1,454
11,617
25,036
25
39,925
Percentages of Totals
Season's Volume
Semi-Commercial
Commercial Plants
Plants
Farm Plants
Volume
Plants
Volume
Plants I Volume
Plants
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
31
16
22
22
6
4
5
15
35
25
16
8
8
15
31
31
8
1
1
8
*
5
24
49
20
8
16
8
32
28
1
4
4
29
63
100
100
100
100
100
100
Under
50,000
50,001- 100,000
100,001- 200,000
200,001- 500,000
500,001-1,000,000
1,000,001-2,000,000
Over 2,000,000
Total
* Less than .5 percent.
Kinds of Seed Cleaned
More common ryegrass was , cleaned than any other seed in all three
types of plants. It constituted 41 percent of the seed cleaned in farm
and commercial plants, and 51 percent in semi-commercial plants. (Table 3).
The next most important crop, except in semi-commercial plants, was perennial ryegrass.
The second most important crop for the semi-commercial cleaners was
chewings fescue. They cleaned out nearly a million pounds. Bentgrass
was third in importance in these plants and in the farm plants, but was
eleventh for the commercial plants. Hairy vetch was third over-all in
volume, and third in the commercial plants. The other crops cleaned are
listed in Table 2, which shows their relative importance in 1957.
One significant feature of the sample plants was the variety of
seeds cleaned in any one plant. Some plants cleaned only one or two dif
ferent kinds of seed, while others cleaned as many as fifteen. Thirty-one
of the plants cleaned only grass seed, and five cleaned only legume seeds.
Thirty-four cleaned both types. There appeared to be no relationship between seasons' volume and the amount of specialization or lack of it as
regards types of seed cleaned. The only exception to this was that four
of the five plants cleaning only legume seeds had less than 50,000 pounds
annual volume, and the other had less than 200,000 pounds. There was also
no evident relationship between the number of different kinds of seed
cleaned and a plant's annual volume, though the commercial plants as a
group tended to have the greatest variety. G e ographical location within
the valley appeared to be the only factor which had any bearing on either
the kinds of seeds or the types of seeds which a plant cleaned. Major
Table 3. Numbers of Plants Processing Each Kind of Seed
with Total Volume Processed, 1957
25 Commercial
13 Semi-Commercial
Plants
32 Farm Plants
Plants
Number
Number
Number
Kind of Seed
Cleaning Volumel/ Cleaning_ Volumel/ Cleaning
1000 lbs
1000 lbs
Hairy vetch
Common vetch
Aus. winter peas
Chewings fescue
Bentgrass
Crimson clover
Red clover
Alta fescue
Creeping red fescue
Merion bluegrass
White clover
Alfalfa
Sudan grass
2
Meadow foxtail
2
Orchard grass
Lotus
Sub-clover
Reeds canary grass
Alsike clover
Cheat
Ladino clover
Total pounds processed
10
6
4
9
7
6
2
5
3
2
471
103
25
331
496
99
11
109
93
25
-
1
50
3
16
-
2
1
8
5
1
35
20
1,019
804
5
-
4
107
3
3
44
103
13
14
8
8
7
14
15
15
9
2
-
-
2
1
3
1
2
2
25
-
1
3
-
-
6,379
1
2
5,757
4,622
2,173
2,019
713
508
1,392
1,355
883
562
162
75
67
10'
56
21
279
19
10
9
3
39,925
1/ Total pounds of clean seed processed by all the plants cleaning each seed.
production of most of the seed crops tends to be localized (Figure 1).
That is, the production of the major portion of a particular seed tends
to be contributed by one or two counties, even though the crop may be
grown in all parts of the valley.
Cleaning Season and Labor Requirements
Large amounts of unused capacity exist in the sample plants. Seed
cleaning is seasonal work for most of the plants. In fact, only four of
the seventy plants in the survey cleaned seed year-round. In addition,
there are wide variations in number of hours operated, as shown below.
Days of Seasonl/
Ranged Average
Hours rerated2/
Range Average
Farm
10-185
94
20-1200 319
Semi-commercial
60-200
132
117-3158 830
Commercial
80-300
207
96-2314 . 1287
Type of Plant
1/ From first day to last.
2/ Derived from data on volume cleaned and cleaners' estimates
of hourly output for each plant.
One reason for the wide variation in days of season is the manner in
which the cleaning is done. Most plants started at harvest time, but only
nine farm plants cleaned their entire volume during the harvest period.
Eighteen other farm plants cleaned during the harvest period, and then
finished up during the winter months. Five waited until winter to do all
their cleaning. The commercial and semi-commercial plants cleaned straight
through from harvest till they were done. Most of the cleaning is finished
by late February or early March.
From data on seed volume and hourly capacity for each seed, it was
possible to derive the hours operated shown above. This figure contains
no allowance for time lost between lots or for breakdowns. Yet it indicates that seed cleaning equipment in these plants is not being used to
full capacity.
It should be noted here that the time spent by many of the farm cleaners
in cleaning grains was not included in the operating season. For this
reason, the extent of the excess capacity in farm plants is not quite as
great as the short seasons would indicate. Excess capacity does exist,
however. Perhaps the best reason for the existence of excess capacity
is that many of the farm seed cleaning plants utilize off-season labor
which would otherwise be idle. The question arises, however, as to whether
seed cleaning is the best use of this off-season labor. Undoubtedly
there are aspects of convenience associated with cleaning one's own
seed. Yet the fact that seed cleaning is an enterprise with a high
proportion of fixed costs in relation to variable costs means that costs
per unit of output are lowered in a given plant only through increases
in number of hours operated and thus in total output. If the real cost
of operation of a farm seed cleaning plant were known, some cleaners might
discover there are better uses for their off-season labor than seed-cleaning. The question of costs of operation will be the subject of further
research.
Seed cleaning is not an operation that requires a large amount of
labor (Table 4). Well over two-thirds of the plants used only one man
per shift. Labor required depends to some extent on plant volume, but
Table 4. Labor requirements of the sample plants
Willamette Valley, Oregon, 1957
32 Farm Plants
Plants using 1 man per shift
2 men "
"
3
4
U
5
6
32
Plants with only one shift
25
It
11
IT
it
II
11
II
II
11
11.1
13 SemiCommercial Plants
25 Commercial
Plants
1 0
2'
1
10
4
3
5
1
dint
11
Plants with more than one shift
At harvest
Rest of season
Plants using extra men during
receiving period
de
21
4
7
3
5
25
10
more often it depends on the cleaning and handling methods employed.
This is particularly true at harvest time when the plants are receiving
the seed. The labor requirements in the farm plants were furnished by
the operator or his family, or by a farm hand already hired on a yearround basis. Only two semi-commercial plants used labor hired exclusively
for cleaning.
Shift length varied only slightly. It was usually between 8 to 12
hours: mostly 10 to 12 hours during the peak receiving season and 8-10
during the rest of the cleaning period.
In order to more fully utilize their labor and equipment, all the
commercial plants surveyed had one or more other enterprises in addition
to seed cleaning. In fact, the four smallest plants -- those with less
than 200,000 pounds of clean seed for the season -- did cleaning more as
a sideline to a feed and fertilizer business or farm supply. Grain cleaning was carried on by all but five of the plants. Some plants bought and
sold seeds cleaned by other plants; most had a fertilizer and farm supply
business; about fifty percent mixed and sold feeds. Even though these
enterprises allowed the commercial plants to employ a certain number of
men on a permanent basis, part or all of their cleaning equipment lies idle
much of the time. This is especially true for specialized machines such
as specific gravity separators.
Handling Methods and Storage Facilities
Mechanization in the handling of seeds has not fully kept up with the
shift to bulk receiving and storage (Table 5). Although over 80 percent of
11
Table 5. Seed Handling Methods Used by the Survey Plants:
Percentages of Plants Using Each Method, Willamette Valley, Oregon, 1957
32 Farm
Plants
13 Semi-Commercial
Plants
25 Commercial
Plants
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Both field run and clean seed
handled in sacks moved by hand
truck.
25
15
12
Field run seed stored in bins,
moved to line by conveyors &
gravity flow; sacks of clean
seed moved by hand truck. 60
39
40
9
15
16
Field run seed stored in bins, removed by gravity or conveyor into
hand cart and thence to line; sacks
of clean seed moved by hand truck. Field
moved
sacks
truck
run seed stored in boxes,
to line by fork-lift truck;
of clean seed moved by hand
and fork-lift truck.
16
Part of field run seed stored in
bins, part stored in boxes; moved
to line by gravity flow and conveyors,
and by fork-lift truck. Clean seed
moved by hand truck and fork-lift
truck.
15
6.
All seed handled in bulk: both field
run seed and clean seed stored in
bins and moved by conveyors and gravity.6
7.
Same as (3) above, except sacks of
clean seed moved by fork-lift truck.
8.
Field run seed stored in large
wheeled boxes movable to line by one
man. Sacks of clean seed moved by
hand truck.
9.
8
Same as (2) above, except sacks of
clean seed moved by fork-lift truck.
4
100
100
100
12
the survey plants stored field run seed in bulk storage bins or boxes,
over one-third of the plants used handling methods which required manual
handling of the field run seed either into or out of storage. Only about
15 percent of the plants were using mechanized handling methods on the
clean seed. Size of plant (annual volume) and type of plant -- farm,
semi-commercial, or commercial -- had no discernible bearing on seed
handling methods, except the farm group had a lower percentage of plants
using fork-lift trucks, and none using boxes as storage.
Storage space was often a problem. Whereas the average of all plants
was sufficient for the 1957 crop, over half of the plants in the survey did
not have enough storage space for their total volume. Many were particularly
short of space for field run seed during the peak receiving season. Inasmuch as the peak marketing season for much of the seed coincides with
the peak receiving season, storage space for clean seed was not as much of
a problem.
The disposal of screenings is a problem faced by all seed cleaners.
Most commercial plants make an accounting to growers for their screenings
and either buy them to grind for feed or return them to the grower. In
the commercial and semi-commercial plants the screenings are usually
sacked. This requires quite a bit of labor. The problem is a little
simpler for farm plants. They usually sack only those screenings which
they intend to reclean or grind for feed. Mostly they haul the others
off in the bulk to a dumping or burning place. One plant visited used
a pneumatic conveyor to transfer screenings into a burner similar to those
used by sawmills to burn waste by-products.
13
Seventy percent of the farm plants realized some value through selling or feeding at least a portion of their screenings. Nearly 50 percent
of the commercial and semi-commercial plants ground screenings for their
customers, and about half the commercial plants bought screenings to grind
for feed. The cleaners indicated they ground no screenings for feed if
they contained noxious weed seeds or seeds of weeds which were locally a
serious problem.
Cleaning and Handling Equipment
The most conspicuous characteristic of the cleaning plants in the
survey was the wide variety of methods and equipment in use (Table 6).
Commercial plants tended to have the most equipment, both in number of
different items and quantities of most items. This is only logical in
view of their greater average volume and the greater variety of seeds
cleaned. The same was true of the semi-commercial plants in relation to
the farm plants. Yet, within the group of farm plants, and within the
group of semi-commercial plants, size, or annual volume, appeared to
bear no relationship to the number or variety of different equipment items
in a plant. There was such a relationship among the commercial plants,
however. This suggests that for the range in size occurring in the farm
and semi-commercial plants, the kind of seed cleaned and the number of
different kinds cleaned are more important than total volume in determining the equipment needs of the plant. However, an analysis of equipment sizes would probably reveal that the larger items were usually in
the larger plants.
14
Table 6. Percentages of Cleaning Plants Having Specified Equipment
Items, Willamette Valley, Oregon, 1957
Farm
Plants
(percent))
SemiCommercial
Plants
(percent)
72
25
3
-
23
54
15
8
-
-
-
1
2
28
9
41
-
23
31
8
46
3
-
-
20
28
4
28
8
8
4
16
8
8
56'
12
4
9
6
39
15
16
16
34
16
6
3
-
15
39
15
-
-
-
31
31
64
28
24
12
24
16
12
8
4
12
20
Item and Quantity
A. Cleaning and Separating
1. Cleaners 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2. Discs
3.
1
2
3
Disc-Cylinders
4. Indent Cylinders
Single Barrel
Multiple Barrel
5. Spiral Separator
(1 or more)
6. Doghair Reel
7. Spec. Gravity Separator 1
2
8. Draper
9. Dodder Rolls
10. Buckhorn Sawdust Mill
11. Electromagnetic Separator
12. Electrostatic Separator
13. Perforated Grader Cylinder
14. Debearder of Huller
B. Handling Equipment
1. Belt-and-Cup Elevators
none
1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
over 12
2. Pneumatic Conveyor
3. Augurs
4. Horizontal Conveyor
(Belt or Dragchain)
5. Hand Cart 1 or 2
3 or 4
6. Sack Pifer
7. Fork-Lift Truck 1
6
91
3
3
28
6
9
3
69
31
-
39
23
8
8
8
23
Commercial
Plants
(percent)
4
24
36
16
8
12
4
24
16
20
4
28
12
12
15
I n the discussion that follows, a "cleaner" is any air-screen machine, whether used for scalping, cleaning, or finishing work. The
word "disc" refers to a separating machine using indent discs, and "cylinder"
is a machine in which the separation takes place in an indented cylinder.
A "disc-cylinder" is a separator with both a cylinder and a series of
discs.
Special purpose machines were especially common in the commercial
plants. Spiral separators were present in almost all plants cleaning
vetches. Doghair reels were also quite common in plants cleaning large
amounts of ryegrass. Specific gravity separators were more numerous in
the commercial plants. Debearders, including seed polishers and hullers
(and hammermills used for this purpose) were present in over one-fourth
of the plants. Inclined drapers were found in nearly one-fourth of the
commercial plants, but only 3 percent of the farm plants had a draper, and
none were present in semi-commercial plants.
Such items as buckhorn mills, electromagnetic separators, electrostatic separators, dodder rolls, and perforated cylinders were found only
in a few of the commercial plants.
Seed handling equipment also varied in number of items and variety
of sizes and models. All but
4 percent of the total number of plants used
belt-and-cup elevators to lift loose seed. One farm plant and one commercial plant had airlifts or pneumatic conveyors. One farm plant used
only augurs for moving and lifting loose seed. Nearly all the farm plants
and most of the semi-commercial plants had 1 to 3 elevators, whereas the
largest percentage of commercial plants had 4 to 6 elevators.
16
Nearly one-fourth of the commercial and semi-commercial processors had
fork-lift trucks; but none were present in the farm plants. Mechanical
aids to sack stacking were found in 28 percent of the commercial plants,
only 8 percent of the semi-commercial, and only 3 percent of the farm
plants.
Equipment Combinations and Cleaning Methods
There are many different equipment combinations in use; yet there
are only a few which are used widely (Table 7). It will be noted from
the table that the cleaning lines were mostly composed of only two or
three machines. The more complicated lines (included in "16 other combinations" in Table 7) are presented in more detail in appendix Table 1.
The cleaning lines, or equipment combinations, are presented in the tables
according to the order in which each machine appeared in the line. For
example, the combination "cleaner plus disc-cylinder plus cleaner" shows
that the seed was first run over an air-screen cleaner, then through a
disc-cylinder machine, and finally through another air-screen cleaner.
As regards the "associated equipment," these were specialized items.
They were sometimes incorporated into the cleaning line, as, for instance,
a doghair reel used to remove rat-tail fescue from ryegrass. Most often,
though, they were not a part of the regular line, but were used to effect
a particular separation on some lots (the use of an electrostatic separator is a good example of this). Or, they were used to do a particular
job to facilitate the cleaning and separating of the seed in the regular
line (such as hammermills or debearders used to break up "doubles" in
some seeds or to remove awns or otherwise change the physical properties
17
0
.4 o
N
44
0 0.0
to
C)
111 C) C) h+ %0
N
r4 CO 0
r4 r4 1.4
Cr1
,-4
O
rd
C7% N
N
1-4
N
r4
O
ri
O
14
•0
14
VI 0' 0% CO st 0%
0
1 Ch 1 01 1 01
O
1 0 1
r4
r4
O
ra
U
14
aJ
ca
CU 0
04
ai
00
$4
Pk
U
0 0 0 1 0 0
04 04 r4
C4 01
.0
U
al
a)
0
0 14
W
0
r1 O
&I -4
V1 Ps Ps Ps 01 %Co
r4 04
r4 V4
P.
O
1-4
0
0
101 II's° 1
N
Cr)
1
0 0 0 4/
.0 0 to
4.1 4.1 r4
cd al
0
CU > 0
0
14
. oo
o
4.1 0
0 ..4
03
0
CU CO 0 0 .0
,-4 4.1
-r4 -1-4 4
04 4
•0 E•4 44 CO CU
.-4
0 14 14
41
0 0 0
• 14 • 14 g• 0
44 .4 0. 01
0 *IA 0 0
I
0
0
'0
•
,o
cr o CO 4/
0 o
to
00 "*.,
$4
0
4.1
-1
W
a)
0
0
•
(1:3.
14
U
0.1 4)000
)4 0 Cc'
,0 4.) 0) ON 0
.0
t3
1 .1 0
°CU
1-1 "
0 : 1.1
1 W •k
0 0 a) -,4 cd
1 PI .5 Li ., 0
. 1
bOD
0 1 4-1
0 0
Ps
u)
CD
0
0
$4
0.
00
0 o
0
0
a) cll 4.4
CU
CI)
4 0) 0 0
1.4
r-I
031 0 0
0
U
0
0)
0 144 W 0 0
4/
02
t-40 4-1 CO>
.0
4.1
4 0 cd
° r-l
cd .0,0
1-1"0
0
0 b0 ,-4
w
.-)
0 0 O. w 0
4-1
• -1 4.1
/4
04
14 0 ,-1 0 '0
1:1
a)
94
cu a) al
a)
0
0 0 14 g ca
to
$4 W a- 0
- 0.) > 0
$4
0
0 .
k 0.W,-4 co
42 w 0
0) 0 4.)
a)
0 W T-4
0 0
> cd
0
0
03
0 0 '-'1
.--1 CO C/3 V) .-.1
0+
1-4
c) al 0 • ,-I 0.
,-1
0 .0
C0 be (1)
OW
c.) 4-1 4.)
...c1) W
44 0
CO
"0 -.04 1
0 0
0
-irg 1 42 „4
••-n 44 ›,
0 .0
0 a) cU
a) 0
0
U) '0
0
c)
as
4.)
0
cd
ra
,-4
c'4
r1 I--1
O
Crt
1 r4 Ps ‘0 1 1
r4 ti0 r4
O
r-1
Or
44
0
CD CD 1 el CD CD
N N N N
I
O
O
$
I
11
1
1
I h.
rd
0
ad
0
U
01 1 CO 01 C)
C4 N nt
N
.0
4.1
IN
0
co
a)
00
•
O
O
.. > at 0
. 0 )4 14 0
Ul 1 st 00 1 00
co 0 0 0 cd
co •n-s co 1)0 0
O
O
rd
0
1.1
a)
Pw
%C)
N
r• 04 CO %Co 1
01
N
U1 a11 1 1 t 04
0
0
00
r4
Cel
$4
0
co
0
'0 0
0 0
+4
U
01-1
t) 0
03
CO .4
0:1 1-1
CO
.5-1 0
44
• ,-1
0
4-1
"0 C)
11
10
an
.0
C0 0
CO 0 co E
13)
C
0O
14 0 r-1 /4 0 0 14 0
r4
1-♦ a) e-I 0. a r-4 1-1 a) U
ad
O. '0 Oa 0 0.a 0
4. ►
0 $4
0
14 0
0
14 .r-1 /4 0) 0) 14 14 0)
a) .4 CU 11 ,-4
0) .4 .0
0 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.3
0 CO
0
to U 03 • r4
a)
a
a) a) a) 0
g
U 000E4 r-1
›,
4J l
0
0
-.4
0
14
r-1
4-)
0 $4
0
C.)
CD
4-1 0
•-1
a
al 4.1
0
aQ
U
"0
4.1
0+
1+0
14
41 84 •,-). )4
03 LnI 0 0 44
0 a) D. al
•••••.1 bi) 4.) 0$
cr
4) 0,
w 0 r4
a) is V3 0
0 14 ct1 14 k
$4 a0
00
14
4 g 0
-c1 14 ›%
W • r4 4.4 t •1 k 0 14 $4 C14 14 04 4-1 c.)
0
4.)
0 a) .0 0 1) 0 4.1 W
so
W
/4 O.
cd
14 c.)
.1-1 60 al
N
ccl c.)
0 0 I-1 1-4
C.) 0 /4
a)
OA OWNASA
0 11C1 COW 0.3
CO
A
.0 ,-4 "cl
4..1 0 0
0
44 a)
CO 44
•t4 a)
0 .0
4.1 oti
14
0
CA .0
CD "C)
•,4 ).)
co
00 144 0
0 0 .0
"0 .0
co
$4 0 0 co
0 4.1 •4
W 0 -r4 0.* 0
,-4
a)
0 ,--,
.0 0
0 0
(i.:
0.
0
c.) .0 -8, 14
w
A.
. 0)
0 c) r-•
cd •••••• 4) $4 .-4 .0. ca "0
0 W
al W
.• cl)
co W .0 a) W
,-.1
•,-1 144 4.1 1.4 4.) ,-.4
$4 0
0 0 0 c1) 0 .0 ca 0
4.1
0 1.1-i
cd cd
..
X W r--1 440 E-1
00
"0 ia 14
0 0 0. -,4 -.4
0)
>4 a)
'0
44 0
0 94
ol -,-; a) 0 ,--1
1-1 0 14 3 "0 01 0 1-4
0 14 0 0 0 CD +4 0
"0 0 14 44 14 0 14 43 .0
Ct. 0, • .4
2 R. .°)
0 0 CU Cla 14 "ti
0 -,-) 0 0 0 •0 a) •0 0
0 ,4 0
01 14
c0 0) 0 41 01 0 co
0
a) >
0
v-1 •,-1 0 'V
V 44 0 0 CU
.1-1 14
0
0 I-) .0 -,-1 .0 0 a)
Il 0 4.) .0 4-1
00 -0 cl)
0 al 0 .0
0 1-1
ri
0 0 0 0 0 .0 W 0A
I-I 04 4-1 0 --I cf) A
,-4
18
of the seed). Or, as in the case of the spiral separator, some are used
to make a specific separation, as vetch from oats.
Doghair reels were most often used to remove rat-tail fescue from
rye.
grass tailings out of a disc machine or the disc portion of a disc-cylinder. There were only a few plants in which the doghair reel was placed
in the line so that all the seed passed through it. One plant had its
doghair reel situated so that any fraction of the seed could be run
through it, depending on the extent of the contamination.
Debearders (including seed:hullers, seed polishers, and hammermills
used for the same purpose) were used most often on chewing fescue and
bentgrass. Use was restricted to the tailings in most cases, with the
exception of merion bluegrass. One-half the plants cleaning this seed
had a debearder through which was run their entire volume of bluegrass.
This accounts for the use of debearders on "other crops" in Table 7.
When hammermills were used to perform the same function as a debearder,
it was usually run at 30 percent to 60 percent of the normal grinding
speed.
In only one plant was the first machine in the line other than a
cleaner. This plant used a disc-cylinder as the first machine in cleaning common vetch and oats. Another variation in the use of a disccylinder was found in a farm plant cleaning chewings fescue. The disc
cylinder had been modified so that the seed coming from the first cleaner
went through the cylinder first, then the clean fraction was elevated
back up to go through the disc section. This meant that the tailings
of the disc section could be run back through the cylinder if desired,
while the clean fraction went on to a final cleaner.
19
Appendix Table 1 shows several combinations with two cleaners plus
other machines. Usually, when two cleaners were used together, the seedlots were split so that half the lot went over one cleaner while the
other half went over the other cleaner, and then were rejoined to go
through another machine. Sometimes, however, the machines were used one
after the other. While capacity is probably a little higher with the first
method, the second one allows more complete separation or cleaning overall, according to users of this method. In this same connection, it
should be mentioned that several of the larger commercial plants had two
or three different lines, though they were usually of the same combination
of machines. This offered them the opportunity to split lots of seed
and clean them faster, or to clean more than one lot at once. Where .a
plant had more than one line, but just one combination, it is listed
only under that combination. However, some plants had only one complete
cleaning line, but used it in different combinations on different seeds.
These are listed under each combination they used for each seed.
The preceding discussion points out the fact that it is possible to
have some flexibility in the cleaning operation even with a limited number
of machines. The main requirement for flexibility is to have enough
elevators and a sufficient valving arrangement to direct the flow of
seed as desired. Lack of sufficient elevators hindered seed cleaning
operations in several plants. This was particularly true in some of
the smaller plants, but was also the case in some of the larger plants.
The question of hourly capacity must be considered in the selection
of the optimum combination of equipment needed to clean any particular
20
seed or group of seeds. This study has only presented the equipment cornbinations in use; it is not intended to serve as a guide to the selection
of equipment. Limitations of the data prevent a relating of capacity to
equipment, but a following section will deal with capacity to the extent
of the findings.
Cleaning Capacities
Hourly cleaning capacities vary widely among the survey plants (Table 8).
Most of the differences are attributable to such factors as size and type
of equipment, amount and nature of contaminants in the seed, and the type
of seed itself. The skill of the operator or cleaner man is undoubtedly
a factor, too.
The data contained in Table 8 were derived from operators' estimates
of the pounds of clean seed their cleaning plants could turn out per
hour under normal conditions. Since they are averages of estimates, it
should be emphasized that they represent only average conditions. The
data illustrate the differences in capacity that are associated with
differences in kinds of seeds.
Information on volume of field-run seed input per hour would possibly
have reduced some of the errors associated with estimates of clean seed
output. Due to the manner in which most of the field-run seed is handled-that is, no weights are taken between storage and the cleaning line--very
few plant operators indicated any knowledge of input weights. Future
studies can possibly resolve this question.
It should be noted here that there was an apparent relationship
between capacity and cleanout.1/ The average cleanout within a kind of
Cleanout, in this report, represents the weight loss from removal of
impurities in the cleaning process.
21
Table 8. Average Cleaning Capacities for Specified Grass and Legume Seeds,
Willamette Valley, Oregon, 1957 /1
Number of
Plants
Reporting/2
Pounds of Clean Seed
Processed per Hour/3
Low
High
Average
Grasses:
Perennial Ryegrass
20
700
2000
1238
Common Ryegrass
28
500
2400
1230
Alta Fescue
19
300
2000
953
Creeping Red Fescue
10
200
1000
425
Chewings Fescue
21
100
1050
398
Bentgrass
14
150
950
427
Merion Bluegrass
50
400
172
Meadow Foxtail
60
250
146
Legumes:
Common Vetch
12
800
3000
1966
Hairy Vetch
17
500
4000
1715
Crimson Clover
14
200
1500
954
7
300
1000
586
Red Clover
/1 Capacities are stated in pounds per hour. The table includes only those
seeds for which four or more estimates were available.
/2 This column does not indicate the number of plants which processed each
kind of seed, but indicates the number of plants which gave an estimate
of their hourly output for some of the different seeds.
/3 Does not include values from those plants whose output of a particular
kind of seed was based on salvage of that seed from another crop or
from screenings (salvage values usually were about 40% to 50% of the
corresponding values for regular cleaning).
22
seed was inversely related to capacity--as cleanout goes up, capacity
goes down. The relationship also holds true for different kinds of
seed. The seeds (except for the vetches) with lower average cleanouts
usually had higher capacities. This is not to be construed as meaning
that cleanout was the only factor affecting capacity, but with a given
set of machinery, cleanout (and its composition) is the main variable
affecting capacity on any particular kind of seed.
Contaminants and Special Problems
Docks and sorrels were reported by the cleaning plants to be the
most usual contaminants of the seed crops (Table 9). They are found
in practically all crops, and are particularly troublesome in the ryegrasses and red clover. Rat-tail fescue was of nearly equal importance
over-all, though it wasn't mentioned as a contaminant of the legume seeds.
A complete list of all the contaminants found in seed produced in
the Willamette Valley would include practically all the weeds and crops
in this area. Some of them are common enough to come to the attention
of cleaners because of their quantity or because of the difficulties
they cause in seed cleaning. (See Appendix Table 2). Rat-tail fescue
or dog-hair, as it is often called, was mentioned most often as the usual
contaminant of alta and chewings fescues, and was of equal importance to
the docks and sorrel in creeping red fescue. Silverhair grass was an
important contaminant of bentgrass, while in merion bluegrass, annual
and Canadian bluegrass were most common.
Buckhorn plantain was of equal importance to docks and sorrel in
red clover, whereas wild mustard and cutleaf cranesbill appeared most
23
ar
U
4.3 4.)
O $4
0
Se 0 as 03 •.0
N H
tr1
0
rl
0.1
H
co
U
4I
44
O
be
0
03
•r1
4.1
0 .,
•
00
a) 43
cd
..4 0
u al
0
1.)
ro
o
0 .1./
....4 0
0. 0
U
O
C..)
1-1
W
0 0
r-.
crl
V cc)
4
4•J '0
a)
44 (1)
.1-1 .-.4 C../
44 C.)
0
co
4-J "0 01
CO W .--4
O a)
C/1 .•
,..)
O /4
Z
"0 ^ 3
0 4-1
O 14
"0 g
cl)
a)
3
a)
co
a)
4E-I
.
a%
(1)
.-4
.0
cd
E-4
a)
Se at
ra
ON
1
0
O
0w
4.)
00
0
"0
U)
W.
W
000
4-1 14 W
0 14
O c..) $4
4.1
N-1
0
0
a) $4
A 14
a) _ .
00
a) 0. -.
p
14
14 0 a)
a) 10
cl)(2.-1
0•W
a)
3
,--4
4.) 3
"0 0
O 0 > 0
4 cd
"0 0
a)
a)
0
v) a) 4.) 3 a)
O0
0
0.1%CI 1
u) ..4
O 4
$4 0 ,--I
0 44 .-4
•.-I
O
O
as
co
ca
al
14
00
4.1
N
f/1
•
$4
0.)
"0
-a
0
-a
0
9-1 00
i4
a) 0
0
'0 0. 0
0/ 0 14
ra
ca
O
90
0
an
.--1 0
03 •,-c
4.1 cu
0 .0
O
O
• C.)
-
da 0
$4
Cf1
o
0) co
0
a)
cn "ti >4
N a)
O o.
O 0 0
a) a) 14
O
O
se Le)
/4
O W
01
44
Ora
al
140
0
O
O al
O4
O
14
"r3 >
a) 0
• H
0a
.-.4
O
Ss 1
DO
O 0
U
DO
O
94
0. '0
W
W ad
14
0
4)
O
4-1
14
.0
a)
0
u
0
O
0)
4.
ca
al
00
$4
01
0
Q
4-1
W0
,-I 0/
0
0
44 a)
gc.
AR
cd
4.1 0.
0
44 14
0 0
>+ 14
"0 cd
Ora
A0
0
0 •.,-1
(1)
4.)
U
O 0
O al
1.14
O aD)
rt
O
O
ra
4.)
cd
Cd
v3
ra
alco
U)
O 0
O 14
o0
1.4 a)
C14
•.-I 4-1
14
U) 0
W O.
14
boas
•.4
Fc4
.....
O
co
a) w
4 r.c.
c.)
O
O
0.
0
14
U
14
4.)
al
al
4.1
0
L)
$4
0
U)
"0
cd
ca
_X
0
24
often in crimson clover. As for the vetches, mustard and wild garlic
were mentioned more often than any other contaminants.
In addition, to the question on usual contaminants, each respondent
was asked to name the contaminants which presented special problems in
cleaning each of the various crops (Table 10).
Rat-tail fescue and the docks and sorrel were the most frequently
mentioned special problems. Silverhair grass was the third most important problem, mainly because it was mentioned so frequently for bentgrass. It will be noticed in the table that ryegrass was a problem in
the cleaning of the fine fescues.
A comparison of Tables 9 and 10 reveals quite a bit, of similarity
between the most important "usual" contaminants, of a particular crop
and the contaminants which were listed as special problems for that
crop. This indicates a correlation between what a cleaner considers a
special problem and what he considers a usual contaminant. Nonetheless,
the data are considered indicative of some of the problems of cleaning
plants, and suggest that better means of weed control and better methods
of processing are needed.
Cleaning Charges
Commercial and semi-commercial processors used three methods of
charging for seed cleaning. These were (1) based on the inweight of the
seed and impurities as received, (2) based on an hourly charge for
labor and use of the equipment, and (3) based on the cleaned weight.
Charges on the inweight were the most commonly used method. Of
the 44 million pounds (clean weight) custom cleaned by the survey plants,
25
a)
c)
•r1 0d
14
cd
It)
N
•-•1 0
a) O.
O
0
r-I
H
ca
a)
U
a)
0•
14
a)
^0 >
cd 0
....,
co •
4.) Ei
0 a)
al r.4
r4 .0
04 0
0 ,---1
I
O
O
ri
g•-5! I
0
0
6•4
r1
U
14
10 O.
a 0
0 • ,-1
CU
1:1. u) k
Cd "0 0
41 a) cU
CU >4
b0 c/3
•
a
.14 04 o
a) 0 k
Ccl k C.)
O
Fs.
.4 $4 cr1
CU CIN
O > ,--4
a) 0
44 U ••
U)
44
0
0 14
0 d)
0
CO
0
1-1
4.-i 1-01
a) •-4
1i 0
0
t ?
w
0 0.
0 u)
Cb
4 a)
.0
44 CO
RI
44
0 4-1
0
a) dl
b0 0
0 v 0 zi -g
O 00
0 ca
0 a) al
a) 4..)
co
k
0 0
L)
I .• 0
/4 0
al u
XW
00 ••
0.
"0 al ›,
al
a) k 0)
.4)
1-1 0 r-4
Cd "c1
.0 CU
d) fr4 ,-4
"-I
al
3 0
1..1 •• >
0
444-4
0 0
0) k a)
$.1 0 4-J
.0 0
as E-4 .1-1
U) a)
3
44 E1
ci) Ei
co 0 al
,-1 0.
.W
..-1
.ca 0
• b0 ,-.4
0 k
0 0 •,-4
0 u
O . 14
•t-I 0
44 $4
00
g CU
,-,
0 r-I
>1 0
O C.)
"0 c.)
O
0 44
.0 4-1
0 a)
.0
k
a)
0 0
..4 rt.
a)
a) 0
a)
H
k
00
1-4
CD
e•4
.0
H
1
0
0
n••4
ca.
O
ctl
00
••••n
cd
pa
CS1
0
$4
00
4.)
0
a)
a)
'134
O
O
CIO
I
03 a)
00
..-1 0
ca
O
a) a)
O
4 44
0
b0
a)
0
0
••-1
0.-0 U
a) al co
a) c4 al
14
al
O
9-1
pc)
00
0
'0
r4
CO
$4
N
O
O
N
.c)
44
0
a)
00
e.)
,--4
<4
O
O
4.)
CO
rd
44
a)
0 oo
00 03
k
b0
g a)
C.) P.)
C4
,-1
4J
0
0
0
fto
CO
.
1
••4 03
14 a)
Li) 0
X '-'1
0 0
.0
0
H
0 14
cd
4-1 op
0
i
0 Cd
,--1 0
4-1
gse
6-42
O
O
o
0 al
0 14
a) 00
14 0.1
•,-1 0
44 0
,...0 CO
-0
03
C.)
cd
1.1
CIO
CO CO
-A CO
a .2
JJ
tit! 04
cn
0
0
r4
er
CU
Q4 I:4
,4
C.)
O
Ca
a
O
14
ro
cd
O
CU
U
-0 al
0 1.4
a) 00
0
Cd 1-4
ro
03
10
14
Cd
O al 0
0
n••-•
26
80 percent was charged for on this basis. An hourly charge was
applied on about 12 percent, while the remaining 8 percent received a
charge based on the cleaned weight.
The actual cleaning charges for a particular seed varied from plant
to plant. Table 11 shows the average charge and the lowest and highest
charges for several of the seeds encountered in the survey. It should be
noted that these charges are for cleaning only and do not include testing
fees, sacks, or any other services for which a charge is made by the
processor. The one exception to this is noted in part C of the table.
It should also be mentioned that there was no apparent difference between
commercial and semi-commercial plants as to the charges each group levied
for any given seed. There was, however, an apparent difference between
certain areas as to the charges for some seeds, but the survey data did
not indicate the reasons for these differences.
Though there were only three methods of levying cleaning charges,
there was some variation between plants in the application of these charges
for different seeds. Semi-commercial plants tended to charge more often
on an hourly basis than the commercial cleaners did. However, several
processors who charged on an inweight basis said they reserved the right
to charge by the hour on certain seeds or on difficult lots. This was
particularly true for those plants that used special pieces of separating
equipment to do finishing work on lots cleaned by other plants. Only
one semi-commercial and one commercial cleaner charged by the cleaned
weight on their total volume, yet here again several others used this
method on special lots.
Whereas the data obtained in the survey are insufficient to determine
which is the most equitable method, it is possible to point out some of
27
Table 11. Cleaning Charges of the Commercial and Semi-Commercial Processors
for Specified Seeds, Willamette Valley, Oregon, 1957
A.
Based on Inweight
Kind of Seed
Number of
Plants Reporting
15
17
13
4
7
5
2
3
21
4
12
9
Perennial Ryegrass
Common Ryegrass
Alta Fescue
Creeping Red Fescue
Chewings Fescue
Bentgrass
Merion Bluegrass
Meadow Foxtail
Vetch and Oats
Vetch and Wheat
Crimson Clover
Red Clover
B.
Charge per ton weighed in
Average
High
Low
$ 11.00
9.00
10.00
40.00
50.00
50.00
80.00
60.00
5.00
9.00
20.00
30.00
$ 14.00
12.00
40.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
100.00
100.00
11.00
12.00
60.00
60.00
$ 13.27
10.71
25.00
57.50
61.43
60.00
90.00
86.67
7.76
10.25
35.83
45.28
Based on Hourly Charge
Kind of Seed
Number of
Plants Reporting
4
5
3
5
3
Perennial Ryegrass
Common Ryegrass
AltaTescue
Chewings Fescue
Bentgrass
Meadow Foxtail
Blanket Rate for all
seeds cleaned
1
Charge per Hour of Cleaning Time
$
Average
High
Low
3.75
3.75
4.00
5.50
4.00
$
8.00
8.00
5.50
8.00
6.50
MO NO
1•• .N.
8.00
3.50
$
6.19
6.55
5.00.
6.50
5.00
8.00
6.10
C. Based on Clean Seed Yield
Kind of Seed
Perennial Ryegrass
Common Ryegrass
Alta Fescue
Chewings Fescue
Meadow Foxtail
Number of
Plants Reporting
Charge per Ton of Clean Seed
Average
High
Low
IM
2
1
1
2
8.00
$
-15.00
MO ON
MO NO
dB Mb
Me 1110
O. AM
WOO
$ 15.001/
11.50
12.00
80.00
80.00
lj This is the only figure which includes sacks in the cleaning charge reported.
28
the advantages and disadvantages of each. For instance, on an inweight
basis, the grower's cost per ton of clean seed varies as the cleanout;
or to put it another way, the smaller the amount of impurities to be
removed, the lower the cost per ton of clean seed. (Figure 2). For
example, assume the charge is $14 per ton of field run seed. With a 10
percent cleanout, the equivalent cost per ton of clean seed is $15.56
whereas for a cleanout of 20 percent the cost is $17.50 per clean ton.
The cleaning plant also benefits from receiving cleaner seed. The
fewer the impurities to be removed, the faster the seed can be cleaned,
within limits. If the cleaning plant charges $12 per ton for cleaning
common ryegrass, the plant would receive $60 for cleaning a 5-ton lot.
Assume the plant capacity is 1,500 pounds clean seed per hour when the
cleanout is 10 percent. This might reduce to 1,200 pounds of clean seed
per hour if the cleanout were 25 percent.
With a 10 percent cleanout, at 1,500 pounds per hour, it would take
six hours to clean a 5-ton lot. With a 25 percent cleanout, at 1,200
pounds per hour, it would take 6 hours. The plant would receive the same
amount of money in either case, but the return per hour of operating time
would be greater for the lot with the lower cleanout.
The above is a theoretical example only, but it does serve to
illustrate one way in which variations in the amount of impurities in
the seed can affect cleaning costs. A further aspect of the inweight
charge is that accurate weighing of the seed as it is received, and of
the separations made, shows the grower exactly what he is bringiggto:the
plant. He should, therefore, be able to adjust his production or harvesting methods to improve the quality of his seed.
29
Figure 2. Relationship between Cost per Ton of Clean Seed and Cleanout
Percentage for Various Typical Inweight Charges
1 020
30
Percentage cleanout
40
50
60
30
Figure 3. Relationship between Cleaning Charge per Ton of Clean Seed and
Hourly Capacity for Several Typical Hourly Cleaning Charges
60
$8.00 per hour
40
$7.00 per hour
$6.00 per hour
$5.00 per hour
20
0
400
800
1,200
Hourly capacity (pounds)
1,600
2,000
31
Figure 3 relates the behavior of cost per ton of clean seed for
various typical hourly charges to hourly outputs which can be or are
achieved by processors of several different seeds. To the extent the
hourly capacity of a given plant for a particular seed is determined by
cleanout, the grower benefits from having as low an amount of impurities
as possible. It can be seen from the figure that cost per clean ton goes
up for the grower as hourly output goes down. Because of this relationship, some growers, and cleaners as well, feel an hourly charge gives the
processor an unfair advantage through his ability to control output. If
the cleaning plant manager has made an accurate appraisal of his costs per
hour of operation, charging by the hour would appear to be the fairest
method of recovering costs. Available data are insufficient to compare
realistically one method with another, however.
A cleaning charge based on the cleaned seed weight assures all growers
of paying the same cleaning charge per ton of clean seed. Under this
method, though, the cleaner receives the benefit of any decrease in cleanout. The producer of the cleanest seed from the field is, in this case,
subsidizing producers whose seed is higher in cleanout than his own.
Selling Methods
Sales to local dealers are the most important method of selling used
by farm and semi-commercial cleaners in 1957. For the commercial plants,
sales to local dealers were of equal importance to sales through the plant's
parent company or subsidiary outlets.
The majority of the farm plants indicated they often contracted for
sale at some time prior to cleaning, usually after harvest. About one-fourth
said they contracted most of the time. Sales were to local dealers, and
commercial seed processing plants, except for one plant whose seed went to
a local cooperative.
32
Direct sales to seed dealers in other areas were utilized by only 8
percent of the semi-commercial plants and 20 percent of the commercial
plants. Since direct sales were most often used by the larger plants,
these figures probably understate the total volume of seed sold in this
manner. Only 16 percent of the commercial plants indicated they made
some sales through brokers.
Table 10. Selling Methods Used by the Survey Plants in 1957.
111•
•nnn•••nn•nn
Type of Plant/1
Selling Method
To Local Dealer
To Cooperative
Commercial
Farm
Semi-Commercial
Percent
Percent
Percent
91
84
28
3
Direct to Other Areas
20
To Broker
16
Retail
12
Company Outlets
28
Unknown
8
/1 Figures in these columns are expressed as percentages of the number
of each type of plant in the survey.
33
(0
1
00
O
O
Co
U
tr
a)
a-2 0
N
N
0)
1`...
N
Ce)
1
0 0
0
r4
Ca
0)
CO
"0
•
a- 2
to
0
to
to
erl
U)
-0
cn a)
CO fl)
00
0
w
CT
Lt")
"0
94 0)
a) •14
•-
U
o
(,4
%.0
o
•
cl)
O
00
a)
a) Ca4
CO 0)
I-I
14 .0
O
•
>1
r4
1.4
fa
cd c.3
r4
0 00
c.)
• r4 00
.1.1
14 •4
cd
C.)
a)
0 to
fa
1-4
1-4
0
0 CO
rl 1-1
43
0.
0 0
N
•
0
•
1r1
0 0
0. 0
r-1
en
0
r.4
r-1
I
co
N
1
In
1
I4.4
0
$4
O a)
u
a0
1
.0 0
c)
to
N
a) 1-•
CO
1
•
CO
•
00 4J
O 0
•
w
(34. N
to N
1
N
1•••
to
to
CO 44
•
•
O 44
fa 0
to
0.
N
1
44
0
34
01
0
cd
V)
84
a)
.0
E
r-1
I
O c.)
O In
..4 ...4
-0 'V
M
a)
$4
a)
cd
ca
a)
r♦
'-4
C.)
caw
O
r-4
0.
u)
14
1-1 14 a)
o
'0 0
a. a'0
94 14 0 a)
C.)
0) 0
0 A
0
0)
co
0
Cd
a)
0
0
t .-•i
0 0
u
ul
•.-1 U)
el cl) 1:1 $4 "C) 0
0)
r4 14 ',4
-0
a)
.--•
000000
1-1 -,-1 cd 0
0) I-I '--I0) r4
$4
o P., a. •••4 a a)
0
u
cn
-,-)
-0
I-1 S.4
W cu
-0 -a
0 0
.r1 •.4
%-.1 1.4
al
cs3 00
0 zcsi
,-I 1-1 0)
0 0
c)
"0
a) I $4
14 0
W m W
07-1 Of0C)C0000r4
CO >1
•-i
0 1-4 n3
000
cd cas
8 8 A A
Cu
I-I •-4
u
U
co
CO
0 0
>41 >13 r4
1-1 0.
0 C.) $4
0. ,--4
U
I-1 1-4
W (1) 01
cU U 0 ^0 0 •0
0
0
0
W
r4
0.
0
r4
Oa
0)
co cn
za.4
r4 10 $4
s.•
a)
14 (0 14
cu v a)
T) q-4 T8
0 o.) 0
-.4
-.4
Ca
CU 14
00
"0 0/
co
0
r4 CO ir4 Ca 1•1
0 PN U (:14
LI er4 (.) V)
co
P.
-.4 34
comla)
ou o
1:s
,-4 V) I-1 o o ea
O. 0 a) 0
I4 W
4.1
a) 0 14
'0
O. 3 • •-1 $4
14
r4
PN
r-4 CJ 0) CO 01 U3 LI Ca
oo
•-4
0
P.,
cU 0 U 0 -10 01 P. (1)
otc.)
'8 A A 8 z-.; F0'
u
34
O
tise
r•-• C7N N
0
S-`4
0
0
ails
q")
r4
,•-a
0
4.1
0)
O
00
10
4.1
a) • 0
.0 0 a)
4-1 0 0
0 I I
a
in
1
1
1-4
Oja
14
O 4) W
0
0
r•4
4.1 td 0.
• n•4 CII
0
p
O"11
c.)
U •w
,4)
Ao
101.
%,0
0 1 0 I 1 0 0
O
1
O
0
I Cel
1 t'ea
r•4
rel
1
Col1
i
ts,
1
1
O a
N
1
CN.1,-1
1
1
I.,
CO 0 i•1
o.
O
O
1 000 1 1 1 1
N 1
1
1
1
0O
I
O
O
1
I
fs1 CnI CN1
••••1
0
0
ra
1
I
a-.
.-4
1
1
1
a
O 43 W
•r4
W
E-4 14 •r-1
0
•
t/.0
r--1 0 Cd
1
1
1
1
a
I
a
r-4
1
1
O to
O o
1
1
cd 444 0
441
O 4-1
4-1 0
•
CO
4)
W
04 0
W
••-1 •1-14
0
•
O cr
U as 00 0.
a) 14 •,-1
0 0
1
I
0)
4-1 44/ r-4
0
0
r•4
O
c.)
as 0 14
A)
a-)
0
O u)
0)
W
O 0 14
.0
O
O
04 04
O
O
I
0
0
ra
co
a co
a
I
a
1
1
an
tv1
1
I
0
O
.1-Intill
I
a
a
a
-4-
a
a
,
1
a
a
O
0
a
00 ull
-.I.I
a
a
I
I
a co
a
a
a
a
Li,
rn
ad
0.
O
0
cd
W
as
a)
--I 0-0
o
• -o 0
Sr
a)-.4
-4
• 00
-0
5o
a
I
A)
O
U)
0)
10 0
0 r-4
0 U • r4
(a 1:1
0 0
•r•
04 r-1
$4 U
S-4
t
-0 0 4-I›,
-c)
$4
-0
"0
0 u)
V) 0 0
•r-1 •r4
• U) 0 0
r-1
-4 r-4
CO co -.
0.
1-1w
u
u
0.
a)
0
c0
to
0 C.) 10 U) "-I
a-1 ca
0
0
0.
0) v) a) 14 r-4 0 •r4
O
0 0 04 r4 O. 14
O -0 0 ^0
W
4-1
a)
a) U 14
U $4 0
e•I • r1 (1) u)
a) 0
C.) r•-1 0 0 00 al
r-4
cd
r-4
O O. 0 U 0) O. a-I 0) c.)
r-1
U
A A
...., 1
I-4
.-4
-,-,
4-1
O
w
04
• r-1
O
cr
E
$4
0 $4
4-1
0
as 4)
S4 0
Cd 1-.4 0 1.4
a) ca. 05
-o a) w o.
W P cia a)
43
0
0 k ›,
4-a 9-4 .1-1 .--a
0
4-1
CO
0
'0
3
0
•
5.4
O a) 0 r0
•1-1
11
0 • '0
• 4••••. 4J Oa 0
0 CI
0 14
0
-.4
O
co
4.4)
O 4-1
0
co 1-, 0
U)
O 0)
4-11-1
O W $4 -1
••
-.1
. .s•
1
a
0
O
0
••• -n
ro r-1
o
14
U
bt) an 0
$4
0
4J 14
0
0
14 0
4-1
ql
O. 14
a) Cd
0 0.
A)
U
C/)
-,4
443 U
0 -,t
01 0 4)
ca ---- b0 0
k CO 4.,
0 W 0 c»
k "0 0 0
cal
Po
14
14 0
$4
01 -0 Cd 4.4 4.1
c) 0 -.4 0
O -0 > 14 O. ,.
a) 0 0
co 00 cd • r4 Ed 0 .0 CU d)
O 0 14 04 k 0 0 ,--4 ,-1
6 A 0 C/3 A PO A sr4 43
00 0
0 0w
W •r-I
co
144 4
o
14
▪.1 -;
o
(I) 0 0
U • r4 0
0
WO
a)
0
a)
Is 4.)
0) 14
W 4-1
C1) 14
u)
14 0 W
O 0 • 0T
r-41-A
VI 04 0
• ri
1:1
44 0) 44
W 0 4-1 0 0
•
-14
W
$4 WO
4-1 WW W0
r0• r0,--1
5 a) szl u
w 0 .0 O0
p4 0 E-4 01-1
C91
35
Appendix Table 2. Contaminants in the Seeds Cleaned by Farm, Semi-Commercial,
and Commercial Cleaning Plants in the Willamette Valley, Oregon,
1957.
Common Name
Botanical Name
Canadian Thistle
Cirsium arvense
Buckhorn Plantain
Plantago lanceolate
Radish (Wild)
Raphanus raphanistrum
Sheep Sorrel
Rumex acetosella
Curly Dock
Rumex crispus
Sour Dock
Probably means Rumex obtusifolius, broad
leaved or Bitter dock, "Sour" dock not
found in Oregon
Rat-tail fescue
Festuca myuros
French pink
Centaurea cyanus
Wild Garlic
Allium vineale
Wild Onion
Allium sp.
Quackgrass
Agropyron repens
Dodder
Cuscuta sp.
Mesquite or Velvet grass
Holcus lanatus
Downy Chess
Bromus tectorum
Soft Chess
Bromus mollis
Cheat
Bromus secalinus
Hairy Chess
Bromus commutatus
Silverhair grass
Aira caryophyllea
Dog Fennel
Anthemis cotula
Mountain Brome
Bromus marginatus
Wild Vetch
Vicia sp.
Mustard
Brassica sp.
Cut Leaf Cranesbill
Geranium dissectum
Bristly Dogtail
Cynosurus echinatus
36
Common Name
Botanical Name
Lamb's Quarter
Chenopodium album
Morning Glory (Wild)
Convolvulus arvensis
Bird Rape
Brassica campestris
Wild Carrot
Daucus carota
Annual Bluegrass
Poa annua
Wild Canada Bluegrass
Poa compressa
Little Quaking Grass
Briza minor
Wild Oats
Avena fatua
Field Madder
Sherardia arvensis
Rattle grass
Possibly Briza minor
Rabbit grass
Possibly Polypogon monspeliensis,
Rabbitfoot grass
Scorpion grass
Plagiobothrys figuratus
Wild Buttercup
Ranunculus sp.
Rough Hawkbit
Leontodon nudicaulis
Burnet
Sanguisorba annua
Common Groundsel
Senecio vulgaris
Pigweed
Amaranthus sp.
Ripgut
Bromus rigidus
Sweet Vernal
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Spotted Cat's Ear
Hypochaeris radicata
Mouse Ear
Cerastium sp.
Meadow Barley
Hordeum brachyantherum
St. John's Wort
Hypericum perforatum
Spike Bent
Agrositis exarata
Lathyrus sphaericus
,
37
O
'-a
an
0
0
c.)
4J
a)
44
0
r-4
ad 4-1
r-1 ad
u
0
0
tra
4-1
ca g
4.0
0 4-1
cd g
O
r.-1 0
Q. u
4-1
O
0
s4
o g
C.)
ta
01
aA
w 4.)
.4.1
•
'ca
34
cd • ad
01 a)
I
O
471
,-4
1;4 0
C•11
0 >4
a) al
.1J
a)
O.
00U
o
c.)
4.1 ea
0 0) (r)
brs
cs)
4-1
0 CU
4.3
0
4.1 ca
I)
4 "0
.3-1 a)
4-1
0
a)
CO
00 14
u
0 $4
W
.3)
o
o
0
0
ca 34 0
34
00
a)
1-3
34 14
a) cl) 0
34
a) o 3
ca "0 n-4
"0 0 r-1
a) 03 0
O
O
"0
a) a)
a. 0)
cd
,r)
a)
3 0
'0 0
.0 •,-4
ad
14
00
4.1
a)
PP
00 a)
00
3 U)
al 0)
0
a)
• I•4 'V 0
U
a) 14 U)
a)
a)
14
4-4
0
4-1
a)
O
4.) 03
a)
0
00
0 )4
14
0
o
14
0
a)
0 4-1 •-4
F1 3
H
a)
0
3+
01
o
C.)
•-n
u
4-1
a)
N
N
I
0
0
.0 144
W a)
a)
O. 00 4-1•-4
0 0 4-1
03
14 14 W
4-1 0
U 0 0
3z4 03
14
C/3
0
0
r-t
C")
44
H
O
0
00
V..)
0
0
Lrl
N
el".2 0
ri
r-4
kr)
co
1-4
n
0
co
O
•-4 34
ad
an
a)
a)
•4 0
0
F-4
I
M
N
r-4
0
0
1
1
•,4
44 4-1
a)
1-4
ab
an
SC
ad
I 1:3
U)
w
cd
ca
Ca,
CA
a)
a)
4
1 )
•.u4
0'
0
a)
Z
4-4
0)
0 0
0
ad
-0
CO
0
0.0
$4
0
PLI
cd
co
i4
b0
a)
›N
P4
1.1
C.)
W
r4
•-4
O
'-I
4-3
0
38
a)
U
00
• $$$
• r4 4-)
N N N N
'.0
N
N
4.4 $4
O 0
r.41
a) 0
cd H
au
O
O
a)
O
U
a)
ci)
0
n-♦
(I)
4.3
0
$4
-I a)
ctf .1-)
C)
..4
O en•
41 '0 $4
Ci)
1)0
O 0) >4
rl
a) 0. 134
PI 0 0
14 $4
O C.) C.)
OS
0
14
•r1
0 3
CI)
O
•
U
a)
0
4)
O
4-4
B
a)
O
O
In
4-4
r4
.C1
0
1•1
0
4-4
Rj
1
O
rea
0
0
4-1
U
0.
0
00
0 444
41.1 a)
U)
0
In
4-)
cd
(I)
4)
$4
00
4-; 4.1
$.4
0
4-4 C4
O a) as o 0
as
as
4.) 0 r•-1
4-4 C.)
b0 g
0
al 44
-0 0
4-4 0 0
4-)
co) 0 00
00
O
a)
W c.)
$4
u
w
a) 0
• bt)
a) al -•
a. -0 00
4-4 14
0
a)
O 0 a)
-0 0
4-1
•4 44 4-I
0 0 04
U
1.)
1.-4
.0 -.4 01 $4 0)
.,3 4-1 0)
a)
W
54
14-4
3 a)
1-1 14
cu o
3
+-I
4
4-1
an 0.
cc 14-1
4.4 o g
w 14
0)00r 4
0 1-4
0 $4
-r-1
O
$$$
0
r-.
0$
00
•
1
O
O
00
0
O
ape u-a
0
O
t•e r-1
r-1
O
O
4-4
0
11"2 1
4,1
M
0
0
1
4.1
r—i
44
O U
4-4
V a.,
00
1
0
I
ce)
O
ra
co
O al
O 14
O 00
14 a)
P4 14
P4
•
0
0
4-1
U^1
(13
a)
O
ti)
)
,0
tt)
0) 0)
$.4
(*)
00
U
0
$4
00
a)
o
-O
U
00
0
0 00
14
00 -0
4-4
0
O
al 10
•
C.)
14
a)
00
•
4-1 a)
14
44
al 0
al
a)
4-1
O 1-4
•
0F0 0
3
cr)
<C
4-1
4.1
0