€

iferctrtr xxf

Igricnlturc^

Ilibfiral Htts

llMpgchnaloigg

STATION BULLETIN 431 AUGUST 1956

Distributing and Handling
Grain-Feeds in New Hampshire

I. Improving the Efficiency of the Grain-
Feeding Operation on Poultry and
Dairy Farms

By
George B. Rogers and Harry C. Woodworth

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DURHAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE

Contents

Introduction 1

Bulk Feed Handling on the Farm 3

Availability of the Service 3

Accessibility of the Farm Storage 5

Cash Savings on Purchase Price of Feed 7

Indirect Savings 8

Alternatives, Benefits, Costs 9

Effects on the Labor Force 11

The Efficiency of the Grain-Feed Operation on Poultry Farms 12

Unit Size and Specialization 12

Pen Arrangement, Size, and Sequence 15

The Diverse Nature of Housing and Handling and Feeding Grain 15

Non-Mechanized Handling of Bagged Feed 16

Mechanized Handling of Bagged Feed 16

Gravity-flow Installations 17

Installations for Handling Bulk Feed 19

Incorporating Existing Equipment When Shifting to Bulk Feed .... 19

Time Requirements in Feeding Laying Hens 24

An Appraisal of Several Feeding Arrangements 27

Time Savings in Replacement Rearing 29

The Efficiency of the Grain-Feeding Operation on Dairy Farms 33

Improving Efficiency Through Location and Rearrangement 35

The Nature of Facilities for Receiving, Storing, and Handling

Grain 36

Some Grain-Feeding Arrangements for Dairy Farms 37

An Appraisal of Several Feeding Arrangements 38

Dry Cows and Young Stock 41

Conclusions 42

Acknowledgments

The authors are appreciative of the time given and the interest
displayed by over 100 poultry and dairy farmers, and of their
efforts to provide working data on feeding operations and arrange-
ments for handling feed on the farm. Acknowledgment is due John
Holmes and Kenneth Taylor for their outstanding work on field
surveys; and to E. T. Bardwell for his preparation of many of the
illustrations. The manuscript was critically reviewed by Professors
K. S. Morrow (Dairy Husbandry), Richard Warren (Poultry
Husbandry), and H. N. Colby (Agricultural Engineering), and the
authors are indebted for their constructive comments.

Distributing and Handling
Grain-Feeds in New Hampshire

Improving the Efficiency of the Grain-Feeding
Operation on Poultry and Dairy Farms

By

George B. Rogers, Research Economist

And
Harry C. Woodworth, Agricultural Economist*

1 . Introduction

OPPORTUNITIES exist for improvements in methods of receiving,
storing, and handling grain-feeds on New Hampshire farms. Such
changes can result in time savings in feeding, lessened physical effort, re-
duced feed wastage and/or feed costs, and, in some instances, in lowered
operating costs. Hence, as one phase of a broader project the New Hamp-
shire Experiment Station studied methods in use in this and other areas,
with a view to providing information helpful to farm operators in improving
the efficiency of the grain-feeding operation. Bulk feed was considered as
one of the alternatives. A research mimeograph dealt with bulk feed on
poultry farms. f

Another phase of the project dealt with distribution practices, dis-
cussing such matters as the present structure of the grain-feeds industry in
the state, pricing and distributing methods, delivery route efficiency and
costs, and the relative merits of bagged and bulk feed from the dealer's
standpoint. Conclusions with respect to delivery route efficiency and costs
are in part dependent upon the facilities for receiving and storing grain-
feeds at the farm.$ Farm facilities are in turn closely linked with the de-
gree of efficiency which can be obtained in feeding time.

The diversity of housing facilities and methods for receiving, storing,
and handling grain-feeds on New Hampshire farms, as well as variations in
unit size, suggests each farm must be treated as an individual case. To find
the optimum method, analysis of alternatives must be made in terms of ben-
efits and costs.

This study was confined to poultry and dairy farms, inasmuch as these
types of farms predominate in the state. Any economies in feed handling
and distribution are likely to be extended first to users of poultry and dairy
feeds. Poultry and dairy farming account for about four-fifths of cash re-

* Professor Woodworth originated this study and initiated much of the field work
prior to his death on September 18, 1953.

t Woodworth, H. C. Handling Grain in Bulk on New Hampshire Poultry Farms,
N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta., Ag. Ec. Res. Mimeo. No. 11, Jan. 1, 1953.

I Rogers, G. B., and H. C. Woodworth, N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. No. 426 and
427, July, 1956.

1

ceipts from farming in New Hampshire, and about 95 percent of cash re-
ceipts from livestock and products (Table 1). In 1953, over 95 percent of
grain-feed requirements in the state were accounted for by pouhry and
ttle.*

dairy ca

Table 1. Cash Receipts from Farming in New Hampshire, by Enterprises, 1949 and 1953

1949

19=

13

Enterprise

($1,000)

% of
Total

($1,000)

% of
Total

Eggs
Broilers
Chickens
Turkeys

$18,250
9,574

29.2
15.3

44.5

27.2

6.3

2.1

80.1
19.9

100.0

[

$22,411

7.448

6,726

922

30.8

10.2

9.2

1.3

All poultry!
Dairy products
Cattle and Calves
Other livestock^

27,824

17.056

3.967

1,334

37,507

19,390

2,746

1,385

51.5

26.6

3.8

1.9

Livestock and products
Crops

50,181
12,442

61,028
11,769

83.8
16.2

All Commodities

62,623

72,797

100.0

^ Includes turkeys in 1953, but does not include miscellaneous poultry in 191-9 or 1953.
^ Includes turkeys in 1949, and miscellaneous poultry in 1949 and 1953.

Source: Farm Income Situation, Bureau of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Marketing
Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Mixed grain-feed is the principal cash cost in poultry and dairy pro-
duction. Purchased feed may account for 65-70 per cent of unit costs of
producing market eggs. On central Northeast dairy farms in 1953, feed
purchased accounted for about 36 percent of cash expenditures. f Feeding
constitutes a major share of chore time on poultry farms. Feeding grain to
dairy cattle does not take a very significant share of total chore time, but
any reduction effected may be enhanced since it occurs during the critical
time periods of the day.

Among the considerations pertinent to effectuating economies in the
grain feeding operation on New Hampshire poultry and dairy farms are
the following:

(1) Bulk feed.

(2) Size of business.

(3) Type of housing.

(4) Arrangement of facilities.

(5) Organization of the chore program.

(6) Feeding practices.

(7) Time savings vs. costs of installation or remodelling.

* N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 426, Table 4.

t The Farm Cost Situation, Agr. Res. Sen, U. S. Dept. Agr., Oct., 1954, Table
13, p. 37.

2

2. Buik Feed Handling on the Farm

IN grain growing sections, bulk handling has been common practice for
many years. Beginning on the West Coast shortly after the end of
World War II and gradually extending to the east coast, grain dealers have
equipped themselves with special trucks designed for delivering grain in
bulk. For over three years, several New Hampshire firms have made grain
in bulk available to their patrons at a price discount.

A few farm operators for many years have purchased grain in bags,
emptied it into bins and from there on handled it in bulk. One of the reasons
for doing this was the inability of some of the help to handle 100-pound
bags. But for most New Hampshire farmers handling grain in bulk on the
farm is a relatively new innovation.

The initial effort of this study was largely directed toward the appraisal
of the handling of feed in bulk. It soon became apparent that bulk feed could
be neither universally recommended nor adopted by dealers or by farmers.
From the feed dealer's standpoint there are additional investments and a
difficult problem of establishing efficient delivery routes in many areas. On
the farm, the diverse nature of facilities, as well as varying unit sizes, makes
the decision in each case an individual problem.

There are a number of factors which bear upon the decision on whether
or not to shift from bagged to bulk-grain delivery on any particular farm.
These are:

(1) Availability of the service.

(2) Accessibility of the farm.

(3) Cash savings on purchase price of feed.

(4) Indirect savings.

(5) Alternatives, benefits, costs.

(6) Effects on the labor force.

Availability of the Service.

In some areas of the state it is feasible for the feed dealer to offer con-
ventional bulk-feed delivery service. However, there are many areas where
there are too few units of sufficient size to justify operation of bulk delivery.
Thus, it is conceivable that some relatively large poultry and dairy farms
would be forced to continue handling bagged feed. At the present time dis-
tribution of bulk feed in New Hampshire is confined to within a given radius
of milling facilities, except as some dealers may elect to subsidize bulk
delivery by resorting to the costly method of emptying bags into convention-
al bulk delivery units.

Recently, an alternative method of delivery has made its appearance.
With this system feed is received and loaded on delivery trucks in bags.
Delivery at the farm involves a hopper, into which bagged feed is dumped,
and an elevating mechanism mounted on the delivery truck. The unit can
be used to deliver feed in bulk to the farm bins where unit size warrants,
while serving other units with regular bagged-feed delivery. Under some
circumstances this might overcome the present disadvantage of units re-
ceiving bagged feed by rail from distant mills but called upon for bulk-
delivery service, or the cost difficulties experienced in setting up both effic-
ient bulk and bagged-delivery routes, even where each form is available at

distributing points by rail.

3

The present inclination of dealers offering conventional bulk-feed de-
livery seems to be to limit deliveries to a minimum of two tons per farm
(and preferably per setting of the truck). The bulk-feed trucks in use in
the state generally have four compartments, each holding approximately
two tons of feed. The use of this heavy equipment for less than the two-ton
unit is probably impractical as a general rule, except where a limited num-
ber of one-ton loads could be worked into a route to maintain the total load
as near to capacity as possible. However, the minim^um delivery unit es-
tablished by the dealer will determine the availability of the service to the
farm.

Whatever that minimum unit happens to be, there are two other points
which will affect availability of bulk-feed service. Many companies base
their sales policy in part upon supplying "fresh feed" to their customers.
In terms of nutritive values, such claims may sometimes be exaggerated.
However, there is insufficient experimental evidence upon which to reach
definite conclusions as to how long feed may be stored under farm condi-
tions without undue loss of palatability and/or nutritive content. Obviously,
if this is one week, rather than a month, it would have great bearing on the
minimum flock or herd size which could be bulk-serviced. For example, if
the feed dealer insists upon a minimum delivery of two tons and feels it

Table 2. Number of Animal Units Required for Minimum Deliveries
of Bulk Feed Under Assumed Conditions

Class of
Livestock

Every Week

Every 2 Weeks

Every 3 Weeks

Every 4 Weeks

2 tons

2 tons

2 tons

2 tons

(No. head)

(No. head)

(No. head)

(No. head)

Milk Cowsi

108

Laying Hens^

30%

2,041

50%

1,905

70%

1,786

Commercial Meat

Chickens^

1

week old

20,000

2 weeks old

13,333

3

ff ff

8,000

4

n tf

6,667

b

5,000

6

4,444

V

n n

3,637

8

3,333

9

2,857

10

2,500

it

2,353

12

2,105

16

2,000

14

1,818

lb

1,667

16

1,600

1/

1,600

18

1,667

19

1,739

2U

1,739

54

1,020
952
893

10,000

6,667

4,000

3,333

2,500

2,222

1,818

1,667

1,429

1,250

1,176

1,053

1,000

909

833

800

800

833

869

869

36

680
635
595

6,667

4,444

2,667

2,222

1,667

1,481

1,212

1,111

952

833

784

702

667

606

556

533

533

556

580

580

27

510
479
446

5,000

3,333

2,000

1,667

1,250

1,111

909

833

714

625

588

526

500

454

416

400

400

416

434

434

426, V!b?e ^3°""'"' ''" ""^ """"»">'• G- B. Rogers and H. C. Woodworth, N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui.

2 Rate, of consumption from: G. E. Prick and W. K. Burkett, Farm Management Reference Manual,
University of N. H. Lxt. Service and BAE Cooperating, Ext. Circ. 307, Sept. 1953 p. 17.
* lota., p. 17, for mixed sexes.

4

is inadvisable to carry feed longer than two weeks on the farm, a farm with
1,000 layers might receive bulk delivery. If one month is a feasible holding
period, a farm with 500 layers could be so serviced.

A second consideration relating to minimum delivery size is the number
of separate feeds used. For example, under conditions where the feed dealer
insists on a minimum delivery of two tons, and feels it is inadvisable to
carry feed longer than two weeks on the farm, a farm with 1,000 layers,
and feeding an all-mash ration, might receive bulk delivery. On the other
hand, with the two-ton two-weeks' policy and a mash-scratch ration, 2,000
layers might be the minimum unit serviced (Table 2).

The adoption of less frequent delivery of feed, whether bagged or bulk,
would involve some adjustments relative to scheduling payments, both by
the farmer and the dealer.

Feed consumption per animal unit varies with body size, level of pro-
duction, or age. Leghorns vs. heavy breeds, or Jerseys vs. Holsteins are
examples of differences in consumption due to body size. Table 2 contains
estimates of consumption for laying hens of heavy breeds laying 30, 50,
or 70 per cent. Similar variations could be shown for milk cows of compar-
able size, but producing at different rates. The effect of age of birds on feed
consumption is also shown in Table 2, where estimates are expressed in
terms of the number of birds, according to age, which would consume two
tons of feed over the indicated periods.

In Table 3, the data show the tons of feed consumed by chickens, ac-
cording to age, for several sizes of flock on both a weekly and cumulative
basis. This table is useful in illustrating a particular problem which may
arise in considering whether or not to extend bulk feed service to meat
chicken flocks or birds being grown for laying flock replacement. If a dealer
can justify infrequent delivery for the first few weeks, or preferably, service
with bagged feed, the minimum number of growing chickens needed to jus-
tify bulk-feed service is rather low after that period. In practice, this ad-
justment on growing stock might involve the following:

(a) On farms where there is a laying flock:

(1) Bulk feed for layers.

(2) Bagged feed for replacements carried on side racks of bulk

truck for a few weeks.

(3) Bulk feed for replacements after a few weeks.

(b) On farms where meat production predominates:

(1) Bagged feed for a few weeks out of the nearest store, and
worked into regular routes.

(2) Bulk feed after a few weeks.

Accessibility of the Farm Storage.

Inaccessibility may preclude some farms from consideration for bulk
feed delivery. Weight limits, width, overhead clearance, and seasonal vari-
ations in road and driveway conditions, as well as maneuvering room, need
to be taken into account.

The location of better agricultural lands and/or farms has apparently
been given only minor consideration in the building of improved roads.

There has been little change in this respect since 1942, when it was con-
cluded that:

"Inadequate rural road services in New Hampshire have contributed
to an uneconomic use of rural land and to an incomplete realization of ag-
ricultural and recreational opportunities. . . .a large majority of the so-called
'declining areas' are those districts most inaccessible in a town. . . .many of
the declining areas are made unfit for agriculture by uncontrollable natural

forces, Nevertheless, too many areas in the state are declining because

they are not readily accessible. . . .""

Table 3. Weekly and Cumulative Feed Consumption for Selected Flock Sizes of Growing Birds

Age

2,000

birds

Tons of Feed Consumed by

10.000

in

5,000 birds

birds

Weeks

Weekly

Cumulative

Weekly

Cunuilalive

Weekly

Cumulative

1

.2

.2

.5

.5

1.0

1.0

2

.3

.5

.75

1.25

1.5

2.5

3

.5

1.0

1.25

2.5

2.5

5.0

4

.6

1.6

1.5

4.0

3.0

8.0

5

.8

2.4

2.0

6.0

4.0

12.0

6

.9

3.3

2.25

8.25

4.5

16.5

7

1.1

4.4

2.75

11.0

5.5

22.0

8

1.2

5.6

3.0

14.0

6.0

28.0

9

1.4

7.0

3.5

17.5

7.0

35.0

10

1.6

8.6

4.0

21.5

8.0

43.0

11

1.7

10.3

4.25

25.75

8.5

51.5

12

1.9

12.2

4.75

30.5

9.5

61.0

13

2.0

14.2

5.0

35.5

10.0

71.0

14

2.2

16.4

5.5

41.0

11.0

82.0

15

2.4

18.8

6.0

47.0

12.0

94.0

16

2.5

21.3

6.25

53.25

12.5

106.5

17

2.5

23.8

6.25

59.5

12.5

119.0

18

2.4

26.2

6.0

65.5

12.0

131.0

19

2.3

28.5

5.75

71.25

11.5

142.5

20

2.3

30.8

5.75

77.0

11.5

154.0

Hence, while some farm units may have actually gone out of produc-
tion, in large part because of inaccessibility, many have continued to operate.
These oftentimes present a problem to the feed dealer from the standpoint
of added route mileage, the fact that roads may be impassable at certain
seasons, or the load limits involved may require at times substitute delivery
equipment. Although such units are in the minority, they are important.

Because of the heavier truck chassis required for the bulk feed body
and unloading equipment, and the additional weight of those items them-
selves, the adoption of bulk feed delivery tends to increase tare weight.
Use of aluminum bodies would help minimize this effect. If a customer
taking .5 tons of feed per delivery is located on a road with a load limit of
o tons gross weight, a truck of 2-3 tons empty weight could make the de-
livery. However, with a 3-ton chassis and a 2i/4-ton bulk body and unloader,
a load of 5 tons would gross 101/4 tons, or in excess of the road limit.

During the spring months many New Hampshire roads are virtually
impassable due to mud. Hence, a customer normally receiving bulk service

* Parks, W. R., and J. C. Holmes, New Hampshire Rural Town's Comparative
Road Burdens and Road Services, N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. and Bureau Agr. Econ. coop-
erating, Bui. 339, June, 1942, p. 6.

might need to be serviced by a small truck and with bagged feed for the
duration of the difficult going. Such special arrangements are obviously less
efficient than standardized operations, and coming in number at one time,
might deter the introduction of bulk feed service to such units in the first
place.

According to the 1950 Congress over 20 percent of New Hampshire
farms were located on dirt or unimproved roads. Of 11,925 farms for which
data were obtained on distance to trading center over dirt or unimproved
roads, almost one-quarter were located where such distance was one mile
or more.

Table 4. Location of New Hampshire Farms in Relation to Kind of Road
and Distance to Trading Centers Over Unimproved Roads

Number of Farms

Kind of road on which farm is located:

Hard surface 8,363

Gravel, shell, or shale 1,903

Dirt or unimproved 2,758

13,024

Distance to trading center over
dirt or unimproved roads:

0.0 to 0.2 mile 7,739

0.3 to 0.9 mile 1,273

1.0 to 4.9 miles 2,629

5.0 miles and over 284

11,925

Source: 1950 Census of Agriculture.

Many farms have roads and driveways which are frequently unsatis-
factory for non-bulk delivery and which would initially preclude these farms
from being serviced by the heavier bulk-feed delivery equipment. Somewhat
more room is required for maneuvering bulk delivery equipment into po-
sition for unloading than is generally necessary for non-bulk delivery equip-
ment. To provide adequate facilities with respect to the preceding might
require cash outlays and building or rebuilding of a magnitude that a
farmer would be unwilling or unable to undertake. However, the building
of a satisfactory gravel driveway, if that is the particular need, can often
be accomplished with small cash outlay. In many areas private or town
equipment can be hired at reasonable rates. H the gravel pit is within a
reasonable distance, the farm operator may have a 4-5 yard load delivered
for $2.50-4.00. Assuming this is spread on the average one foot deep and 9
feet wide, at $4 per load for a 5-yard load, gravel would cost S26.28 per 100
running feet. Total cost of the project would depend on whether extra labor
must be hired, and upon the necessity for fill and drainage under the gravel.

Cash Savings on Purchase Price of Feed.

Data reported by three companies offering bulk feed delivery service
in New Hampshire indicate that, as of early 1954, producers could realize
about $3 per ton net savings on comparable purchases of bulk feed vs.
bagged feed (Table 5). Cash and quantity discounts for bagged and bulk

feed are about the same. At 100 percent return of No. 1 bags the rebate
would almost equal the reduction in bulk prices because of the elimination
of bags. To the extent that bags returned are graded down into No. 2's or
3's, the net saving on bulk would be increased. Most of the difference in
cost of bulk and bagged feed at the present time is due to an added "bulk
discount" of about $.15 per 100 lbs. or $3 per ton. This may be viewed
as an incentive to get farmers to shift to the bulk method, or as an estimate
of what the feed companies think the net savings to them warrant passing
back to the farmer. From preliminary appraisals it seems difficult for feed
dealers to realize savings on delivery route costs unless bulk-delivery equip-
ment can be operated close to capacity*. There are some additional invest-
ments in facilities at the mill, but some economies in mill operation. Present
"bulk discounts" may be revised in light of future cost experience.

However, farmers may continue to realize some net savings on bulk
feed. These savings, if projected at the rates in Table 5 should permit
farmers to pay for the cost of bulk bins within a relatively short time. Cost
of bulk bins may not exceed cost of building materials if the feed companies
continue their present policies of furnishing technical advice or labor in
constructing the bins. It may be possible to use farm labor at odd times,
resorting to a carpenter's service for framing in some cases, or for the com-
plete job in only a few cases.

Table 5. Net Savings Per 100 lbs. to Producers on Bulk Feed as Compared to
Bagged Feed, Cash and Delivered, 1954

Company

A'

Company

B^

Company

C3

Bagged

Bulk

Be

igged

Bulk

Bagged

Bulk

Feed

Feed

F

eed

Feed

Feed

Feed

Discount for cash

-j

$ .20

$ .05

$

.05

$ .05

$ .10

Discount for quantity

.10

.15

.15

.10

Bag return credit

.134

.154

.134

Bag savings on bulk

.15

.15

Bulk discount

.15

—

.15

.33

.45

.35

.50

.33

.50

Net savings per:

100 lbs.

.12

.15

.17

Ton

2.40

3.00

3.40

1 Based on 4 ton minimum on bulk and load of 4 ton or over on bagged feed.

2 Based on 5 ton quantity discounts for both bagged and bulk feed.

2 Based on 4 ton minimum on bulk and load of 5 ton or over on bagged feed.

* Based upon 100 percent return of No. 1 bags. To the extent that there are damaged bags involved,
this average figure would be reduced, and the net savings on bulk increased.

Indirect Savings.

In the handling of bagged feed there is generally some loss experienced
through damage to the bags themselves. There is little reason to expect any
difference in spoilage of feed under either the bulk or bagged method, but
there might well be more wastage using the bagged method. This wastage
would be due to spillage from damaged grain bags and to feed adhering
to returned bags.

Data from nine New Hampshire poultry farms show considerable var-
iation with respect to the proportions of bags returned for credit which

* Bui. 426, op. cit.

graded No. 1. One farm experiencing heavy damage to bags by rats stored
feed for longer periods than most farms. Another rather large farm had
practically no loss and only 2 percent of its returned bags graded as No. 2.
The data on gradings, together with estimated cash losses from a theoretical
return of 100 percent No. 1 bags, are presented in Table 6. These losses
do not include any costs incurred for rodent control. With metal-lined bins,
rodent control costs are largely avoidable. Where damage to bags is heavy
the savings from conversion to bulk-feed service would be substantial. If
purchases averaged several tons weekly, such savings might go a long way
toward paying for the costs of bulk bins. Under more favorable bag return
conditions, such savings would be nominal.

Table 6. Estimated Percentages of Returned Grain Bags Graded as No. 1, No. 2,
and Loss (or No. 3) on 9 Poultry Farms

No. Farms % No. 1 % No. 2 % Loss Annual cash loss on

grain bags when pur-
chasing a ton of
grain per week-

1

98

2

0

$ 2.08

1

95

4

1

5.52

3

95

3

2

5.82

2

90

8

2

11.02

1

85

10

5

17.16

1

60

15

25

49.40

Total Wtd. Ave.i 9 92 5 3 $ 9.26

^ Weighted by number of birds on each farm.

^ If 100 percent of bags were returned as No. I's, and the credit was $.13 per bag, the producer
would receive $135.20 per year on the basis of returning the bags from one ton of feed purchased per
week (1,040 bags per year). The value of No. 2's is calculated at 3.03 per bag, and no value is given
to those reported under "loss".

No data were obtained relative to loss of grain from pollution and
spillage. One company indicated some bags returned had one-third pounds
of grain still remaining in them. In a sample lot of 1,000 bags returned for
credit, they recovered $15 worth of discarded grain. At $4.74 per cwt. for
feed this would involve 316 pounds of grain, or the equivalent of 6.3 pounds
per ton. The same company estimates the residue from a bulk truck at
3-4 pounds, or with an 8-ton load, 0.5 pounds per ton. On a ton basis, and
using the preceding figures, a savings of 27.5 cents would be realized with
the bulk system of grain handling. Again, this figure would vary depending
on the care used in emptying bags of grain.

Alternatives, Benefits, Costs.

Blanket recommendations on the question of investment in bulk bins
and facilities are to be avoided. Sound decisions as to investment in equip-
ment and improvements on farms must take into consideration the par-
ticular circumstances on each farm. Many of the factors are personal and
the answer depends on the farmer and his family. An installation which
is financially sound for one farmer might be a mistake on a neighboring
farm. The operator needs to make investments in the projects that will give
the most favorable returns, and to select projects which can be carried out
with present resources without imposing a debt burden out of line with
ability to pay.

9

A poultryman might wish to consider alternatives such as installing an
automatic water system or an automatic feeder, rearranging pens for greater
efficiency in gathering eggs and feeding, installing central heating in brooding
facilities, increasing flock size, or purchasing new egg-marketing equipment.
A dairyman might have alternatives such as rearranging barn facilities to
reduce chore time and travel distance in milking, hay or silage feeding,
barn cleaning, to buy additional forage harvesting machinery, or to increase
herd size or improve herd quality. Whatever the possibilities for improving
efficiency seem to be, they should be thoroughly analyzed in terms of addit-
ional costs and additional returns. The procedure below may be used as a
rough guide to the appraisal of the cost component of such analysis. How-
ever, with some of the alternatives such as automatic watering or feeding
systems, substantial operating and maintenance costs, in addition to depre-
ciation and interest, must be taken into account.

It may be helpful to operators who are concerned with building bins
to review a method for m.aking economic decisions on the basis of additional
costs and additional returns. Some of the costs are not out-of-pocket and
some of the benefits are personal and intangible.

In estimating additional costs, the operator's time and the labor of
regular hired men can be omitted especially if the construction work is done
in slack periods and does not interfere with their production in daily work.
For example, if the installation involves a cash outlay for materials of $200,
and for skilled carpenter services of $50, plus 100 hours of available farm
labor, the total additional cost might be considered as $250.

One farmer hired a carpenter to make a complete installation including
storage bins and elevator to service 4,000 layers in a two-story house. In
this installation the automatic feeders were filled directly from the elevator.
The cost was $472.55 for the bulk handling installation, not including the
automatic feeders, which represents an investment of 11.8 cents per layer.
The annual cost of this installation will be the sum of the estimated costs
of depreciation, interest, other fixed charges, and operating expenses.

The annual depreciation can be estimated by the following formula:

Annual depreciation = Initial Cost — Junk Value

length of life
Assuming a length of life of 10 years and a junk value of $50:
$472.55 — $50 = $42.25 = Annual depreciation
10

The annual interest charges can be estimated as follows:

Annual Interest = Cost x rate of interest (5%)

2
$472.55 X 5 = $11.81

100

The expected benefits from the installation can also be inventoried and ap-
praised. There may be very apparent benefits such as: discount on bulk
delivery, elimination of bag costs, release of usable space in the grain
room, or saving of time. Less apparent benefits may be a decrease in the
physical burden and more flexibility in the use of labor. The value of these
will vary according to the situation on each farm. But having made a rough

10

estimate of the annual charge associated with the cash investment, the
operator can ask himself this question, "Will the benefits expected be worth
while in view of the annual cost, and in view of the other pressing needs?"
Table 7 summarizes the costs and benefits possible for the particular
installation described above.

Table 7. Estimated Annua! Costs and Benefits from One Bulk Feed Installation^

Costs

Benefits-

Depreciation

$42.25

Interest

11.81

Taxes, insurance,

maintenance

5.60

Operating expense

30.00

Decreased feed wastage (less by

1.0-5.8 pounds/ton) $ 10.37- 60.06

Elimination of bag loss (low and

average rates in Table 6) 8.74- 38.89

Time savings in feeding (.1-.3 man

minutes daily per 100 layers at

$l/hour) 24.33- 73.00

Savings on purchase price of

feed ($1-3 per ton) 218.40-655.20

Additional net income from 288

birds in released space^
Effects on the labor force

^ For 4,000 layers, described in text.

" Some of these items are "potential" benefits until put to productive use, i.e., time savings and
released space.

^ Space released assumed to equal 2 grain rooms 24' by 24'. Should take into account costs involved.

One man may decide on the basis of having considered alternatives,
that an increase in flock or herd size should be given priority. Another man
may decide that permanent bins will be most profitable. In making a final
decisions, it may not always be the doUars-and-cents differences between
direct costs and returns which will provide the answer.

Effects on the Labor Force.

Reference was made in the preceding section to less apparent benefits
from conversion to bulk feed such as a decrease in the physical burden and
more flexibility in the use of labor. These considerations may be of special
significance to older operators and on family farms where there is little or
no hired labor. Also, taking some of the heavy work out of farming may
enhance its attractiveness to hired workers.

It is difficult to prove that the elimination of lifting and handling sev-
eral tons of grain in 100-pound bags actually pays in dollars and cents.
Some young and vigorous operators may find wrestling with 100-pound
bags a diversion and a challenge. On one farm visited the operator and his
help considered handling 240 of these weekly no burden, but on another
farm the operator, who has to carry only 30 bags a week up a flight of
stairs, considered this a real burden and stated he had just about reached
his limit for this type of physical effort.

Many farm operators and workers probably should not be handling
100-pound bags; others find it one of the most objectionable features of
farm employment. Bulk handling can extend the productive life of older
men. In emergencies, children and the farm wife can carry on a large part
of the essential work. One poultryman who invested about $500 in elevators
and permanent bins stated that the major benefit to him was that the in-
stallation made it easy for members of his family to take over certain chores

11

in an emergency. In another case, a more expensive installation in a four-
story house made grain-feeding more or less completely automatic and en-
abled the wife to do the daily chores in caring for 3,000 layers whenever
the husband could use his time to advantage on other tasks. A poultry house
with 8,000 layers will require about o tons or 160 bags a week. This often
means lifting these bags, carrying them, opening, relifting, and emptying
in the process of feeding. On some farms this has been entirely eliminated.

3. Efficiency of the Grain Feeding Operation
on Poultry Farms

SOME measures of changes in labor and capital requirements in poultry
production during the last two decades, as indicated by results of se-
lected studies, are presented in Table 8. The differences betv/een the 1929
and 1953 figures reflect in large part efficiencies resulting from current use
of larger laying pens and more extensive practices in brooding and rearing.
To some extent they also involve a higher degree of mechanization and sim-
plification of chore practices. Included in the gains in efficiency in the last
two decades have been some relating specifically to grain feeding.

Table 8. Chore Labor Time and Investment in Buildings and Equipment,
1929 and 1953 New Hampshire Poultry Farms

1929 1953

Annual man hours per 1,000 layers for chores 2,404^ 529^

Investment in buildings and equipment per 1,000 layers $7,680^ $5,854"^

Hours of chore labor to raise 100 pullets to laying age 78^ 7.3*^

^ H. C. Woodworth and F. D. Reed, Economic Study of Netv Hampshire Poultry Farms, N. H. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bui. 265, p. 16. May, 1932.

^ E. H. Piper, Chore Practices on New Hampshire Commerical Poultry Farms, N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Circ. 73, p. 3. June, 1946. Average daily chore time per 1,000 layers — 87 minutes.

• N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 265, p. 8. Depreciation charges for laying houses, converted barns,
and equipment converted to 1953 prices.

^ G. E. Prick and W. K. Burkett, Farm Management Reference Manual, N. H. Ext. Circ. 307,
p. 32. Sept., 1953. Cost of 3-story 36' x 36' house, plus estimated costs of feeders, nests, automatic
water system, wiring and fixtures.

" N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 265, p. 18.

" E. C. Perry, Chore Practices on Neio Hampshire Commercial Poultry Farms. II. Pullet Replacements.
N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 79, p. 12. April, 1949. Time per 1,000 chicks started; brooding. 37.5 hours
for 12 weeks; 35.0 hours per 1,000 birds ranged, for 10 weeks.

Grain-feeding is one of the important components of total chore time
on poultry farms. Other important chore jobs include, for rearing, watering,
caring for heating equipment, and for laying flocks, watering, gathering
eggs. The relative importance of the grain-feeding operation in relation to
total chore time with laying flocks and in replacement rearing is illustrated
in Table 9. These data are averages obtained under specific conditions, but
they are indicative of the significance of feeding time in any study of meas-
ures to improve chore efficiency.

Unit Size and Specialization.

Increasing specialization in poultry production has been accompanied
by a decrease in numbers of farms (Table 10). Meanwhile the total pro-
duction of poultry and eggs has increased; consequently, production per

12

farm has increased substantially. The increases in individual farm output
have also been due in part to progress in breeding, feeding, and management
which resulted in faster growth of meat birds (enabling more lots to be
handled per year) and higher egg production per layer.

Table 9. Relationship Between Total Chore Time and Feeding Time,
Laying Flocks and Replacement Rearing.

Enterprise

Percent
Total Chore Time Feeding of

Chore Time in Feeding Total Chore Time

(Man mins. per day) (Man mins. per day)

Laying flocks

Brooding, 12 weeks
Range rearing, 10 weeks

87.0^

27.02

31

(man hours)

(man hours)

37.53

13.2^-19.9-'>

35-1.535

35.03

7.O6-IO.57

20"-307

1 N. H. Sta. Cir. 73, p. 1.

- Table 14. For multiple story houses with systematically located grain room on each floor and feed
carried into pens in pails.

■•' N. H. Sta. Cir. 79, p. 12.

* Ibid., p. 6. Mash only, 9.4 minutes/day/1.000.

^ Ibid., p. 6. Mash and scratch, 14.2 minutes/day/1,000. *

" Ibid,, p. 12. Mash or pellets in hoppers, 10 minutcs/day/l.OOO.

' Ibid., p. 12. Scratch fed in addition, 15 minutes/day/1,000.

Table 10. Numbers of Farms Engaged in Poultry Production, Output
per Form and per Animal Unit, New Hampshire, 1929, 1939, 1949

Item

1929

1939

1949

Chickens on hand^

Number of farms reporting

10,451

8.261

6.596

" per farm

87.5

165.0

301.3

Chickens sold

Number of farms reporting

5,557

4.082

3.829

" per farm

302.3

698.1

1.258.5

Chicken eggs sold

Number of farms reporting

7,467

7.7672

4,279

Dozens per farm "

928

1,8692

5,346

Eggs sold (dozen) per

chickens on hand

7.6

10.62

11.5

Source: Census of Agriculture, 1950

^ Chickens on hand, 4 months old and over, April 1 of year following.

- Produced. Hence, larger number of farms than for 1929 because farms producing solely for home
consimntion included. Also relatively higher numbers per farm and egg output per farm in relation
to 1929 and 1949 than comparable series would show.

In terms of the proportions of New Hampshire's output of eggs and
poultry, the share of the output accounted for by larger units has increased
tremendously in the last two decades. These data are shown in Table 11.
From 1940 to 1950 the proportions of chickens on hand April 1, 4 months
old and over (a fair measure of laying flocks), and eggs produced by flocks
of 3,200 and over doubled. The proportion of chickens sold (including some
broilers as well as fowl) from units of 3,200 and over (on hand) increased
even more. The trend toward larger units has continued since 1949-50,
probably at an accelerated rate.

13

Table 11. Percent of Output of Eggs and Poultry Accounted for by
Different Flock Sizes, New Hampshire, 1929-1950

Under

100-

400-

800-

1.600-

3.200

400-

700-

1,000-

2.500

Item

Year

100

399

799

1,599

3,199

and over

699

999

2,499

and over

Chickens on

hand Apr. 1

1930

28.9

32.0

—

—

—

13.4

7.4

12.6

5.7

1940

12.1

18.8

19.7

22.2

13.5

13.6

15.5

11.0

24.8

17.8

1950

6.0

10.5

16.3

22.2

19.0

26.0

—

—

—

—

Chicken eggs

produced

1929

29.5

31.5

—

—

—

—

13.4

7.3

12.9

5.4

1939

11.4

18.9

21.7

22.6

12.3

13.1

17.0

11.3

24.8

16.6

1

L 1949

4.6

9.2

17.5

26.3

16.1

26.3

—

—

—

—

Chickens sold

1929

19.4

33.2

—

—

—

—

14.9

9.8

16.0

6.7

1939

10.6

18.7

20.8

22.8

12.3

14.8

16.5

11.5

23.6

19.1

1949

6.5

9.7

12.7

20.8

18.2

32.1

—

—

—

—

Source: Census of Agriculture. 1910 and 1950.

1 Chicken eggs sold. Overstates the importance of larger sizes only slightly.

Contributing to increased specialization (and unit size) have been the
adoption of mass housing and other practices productive of efficiencies in
the use of capital and labor. Viewed in terms of a constant price level, total
investment per farm has increased, but over a long period it is not clear
that this is true of average investment per bird. On the other hand, labor
input per bird has significantly decreased. Coupling these changes with im-
proved output per unit of input of other elements entering into production
has resulted in relative decreases in per unit costs. This has enabled the in-
dustry to improve its position in the market relative to other livestock prod-
ucts through larger production and lower prices.

A study of poultry accounts from 1931 to 1945 on New Hampshire
flocks of under 3,000 laying hens indicated an upward movement in labor
incomes over the period.* This was particularly noticeable during the war
years. The study concludes that while there was an increase in labor in-
comes for poultrym.en, purchasing power of that income did not increase
proportionately. Thus, to maintain a parity of purchasing power with other
groups, poultrymen would have had to increase unit size. The tightening of
both actual and relative per unit income has been more apparent in the
poultry-meat category since the early postwar period than on eggs, where
a modified cyclical effect has occurred. Nevertheless, in both areas, 1954
saw the most severe conditions since World War II.

The stage is thus set for further concentration of commercial output in
larger units, only temporary setbacks in the upward trend in aggregate out-
put, increased specialization, and adoption of more efficient practices (within
the limits of financing). It is against this background that the reader is
asked to view the discussion of the grain-feeding operation and how its
efficiency can be improved.

Present plant size and degree of specialization are directly related,
exclusive of some variations in the financial position of particular individ-
uals in like size class, to the ability of the business to defray improvement
costs designed to make the unit more efficient. Based upon an analysis of

* Ahell, M. F., Economic Analysis of Fourteen Years of Poult.rv Records, N. H.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 75, June 1947, p. 3.

14

additional costs and savings, it is likely that mechanization can be carried
further with the larger and more specialized enterprises.

Pen Arrangement, Size, and Seqence.

Rearrangement of equipment within pens can frequently yield potential
time savings. A relatively small amount of labor need be invested, but unless
the proper re-alignment of equipment is devised, time savings may be small.
This indicates the need for considerable advance planning before rearranging
equipment within pens.

However, with respect to pen size, it is somewhat easier to demonstrate
labor savings with large pens instead of small ones. Reductions in feeding
time and travel distance by removing partitions to enlarge pens were ob-
served in a Pennsylvania study.* Most new construction of commercial
poultry units in New Hampshire incorporates large pens. Table 12 presents
some examples of the effect of pen size upon man minutes required daily to
feed 100 layers.

Table 12. Influence of Laying Pen Size on Labor Efficiency in Feeding, 4 New Hampshire Farms

Man Minutes

Feed

Feed to

No.

No.

No. Birds

Daily per

System

Pen by:

Pens

Birds

per Pen

100 Birds

Farm A

Mash-scratch

Hand

3

1,300

433

1.92

« "

//

3

5,500

1,833

1.09

Farm B

ri tf

//

4

800

200

3.75

fr tf

//

7

2.600

371

2.69

It rr

//

6

3,600

600

2.22

Farm C

Mash-scratch-
pellets

ff

9

1,600

177

3.12

Mash-scratch-
pellets

tt

2

1,000

500

2.50

Farm D

All-mash

Carrier

27

4,860

180

1.34

tt tr

tt

10

6,000

600

1.25

Because of a limited amount of data suitable for classification, it was
impossible in this study to demonstrate conclusively the effect of number of
pens in sequence upon feeding time. However, it is not difficult to diagram
the potential savings in travel distance under different conditions. A number
of pens in sequence are probably more efficient than a like number of single
pens, but as with other factors, there is undoubtedly a point at which the
number of pens in sequence becomes so great that efficiency drops sharply.
Just what this number is in each case would depend upon the feeding method
(all-mash or mash-scratch-pellets) and upon the capacity of means used to
transmit feed to pens (hand, carrier, automatic feeder).

The Diverse Nature of Housing and Handling and Feeding Grain.

An appraisal of housing facilities on New Hampshire poultry farms
reveals great variability between farms and even on the same farm. There
are scattered individual units of small dimensions, remodelled barns, con-

* Bressler, G. 0., Labor Saving on Pennsylvania Poultry Farms, Penna. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bui. 532, Aug. 1950, pp. 49-50.

15

finuous single- and multi-story houses of varying length and depth. These
various types of structures are representative of different periods in the
development of the state's poultry industry. Today's recommendations for
commercial units stress larger numbers of birds per pen, 30-40 foot depths,
and forced-draft ventilation. Not too many years ago sentiment was for
smaller pens, 20-odd foot depths, and natural-draft ventilation.

With the great variability in types of housing facilities, it follows that
methods of handling and feeding grain are diverse. In addition, adjustments
in handling and feeding grain are limited by the larger cash outlay necessary
with older facilities. This suggests that each farm must be treated as an in-
dividual case, and that with older facilities only limited progress can be
made to improve operating efficiency.

For purposes of studying facilities and methods of handling and feeding
grain, over 50 commercial poultry farms were visited. Many variations in
housing facilities and methods of handling and feeding grain were ob-
served. Diagrammed in the following pages are some variations in grain-
feeding arrangements, for both bagged (non-bulk) and bulk feed delivered
to the farm. Note that some of the non-bulk arrangements are designed for
feed received in bags, but handled in bulk to the pens. Some farms have
made use of various arrangements and auxiliary equipment to minimize
or eliminate lifting and carrying. Likewise, some grain dealers employ
auxiliary equipment in making deliveries to farms for the same purpose.

Some farms in the state have used bagged feed and bulk bins with
downspouts for many years. However, this is the exception rather than the
rule, and extensive use of bulk bins, carriers, conveyors, elevators, and auto-
matic feeders is of rather recent origin. The present interest in improved
feed handling methods on the farm was generated during and immediately
after World War II with the shortage and high cost of manpower. Narrowing
price-cost spreads in recent years have also given impetus to labor-saving
steps and to mechanization. These go hand in hand with the development
of efficient and larger units.

'&^

Non-Mechanized Handling of Bagged Feed.

Figure 1 indicates methods of handling bagged feed which have been
used many years on New Hampshire poultry farms. Bagged feed is unloaded
by hand, stored in bags, and carried to pens in pails or bags. In some of
the less-efficient plants feed may be carried from one building to another,
upstairs, or dov/nstairs. In other instances grain may be available to the
feeder on each floor of a building. Where grain rooms are too numerous,
servicing the farm may be extremely inconvenient for the feed dealer,
though very convenient for the feeder.

Mechanized Handling of Bagged Feed.

It is quite feasible to adapt some form of mechanization to the handling
of bagged feed, either from the standpoint of unloading or in actual feeding.
Examples of the former are conveyors and hoists; of the latter, overhead
carriers, downspouts, and automatic feeders. There are various modifica-
tions which can be made of the examples in Figure 2. For example, down-
spouts can be combined with overhead carriers or automatic feeders.

16

j_, —

^ - 7

^-

I

l__ ^ .

*^ r "1

, ^

1 ,

Central grain room with feed carried

by attendant, truck, or wheelbarrow

to scattered houses.

T777

^

/////■///>*

Grain room on one floor of multi-
y/}///-' story house.

777f777777777TnT77''

■/

c:::::>l<::::::::5

'r.::>M-.''.'.t;;

§^c1::.

Grain room in each single-story house
or on each floor of multi-story house.

ia

-•#'-"f-'

Grain rooms at a number of conven-
ient points in single or multi-story
houses.

Figure 1. Examples of non-mechanized methods of handling bagged feed on

poultry farms.

A number of feed companies provide information on methods of im-
proving feed handling practices on the farm. Typical of such with respect
to bagged feed is a pamphlet published by a cooperative operating in New
Hampshire.* There are also numerous articles in agricultural magazines
dealing with methods used and equipment devised by poultrymen throughout
the country to mechanize the handling of bagged feed. All such sources
should be helpful in finding the method best suited to the individual situation.

Gravity-flow Installations.

Having feed available on most floors by gravity may simplify feeding
operations and reduce physical effort. But the problem of elevating feed
so that it can be made available by gravity is usually one which concerns
both the feed dealer and the farm operator. Some farm operators have re-
quested and obtained second or third floor deliveries of grain-feed for
many years. In many instances feed dealers have had to make these difficult

* Make Feed Handling Easy, Eastern States Farmers' Exchange. April, 1954.

17

!Ef!

^^

iei_¥— k'~

igi— y^

■UgJ » k'"

Grain room in each single story house
or on each floor of mulli-story house,
pens serviced by carrier. Conveyor
may be used for unloading (either
carried on dealer's truck or built into
house).

Grain storage in "attic of converted
barn. Feed received in bags, raised by
rope sling and hay fork mechanism
(10 bags at a time), and stored in
"attic". Bulk bins filled twice weekly,
feed spouted to pens below. An elec-
■ ' hoist could be used in place of
the present equipment.

trie

Grain unloaded in bags. Dumped into
hopper, elevated vertically and stored
in third floor bin. Third floor served
by scooping into pails, first and
second floor by downspouts.

Grain storage on second floor, down-
spout to automatic feeder below
serving both floors. Grain may be un-
loaded by hand truck at second floor
level or rai&ed by conveyor.

Figure 2. Examples of mechanized methods of handling bagged feed on

poultry farms.

deliveries by carrying 100-pound bags up flights of stairs. In others, the
farm operator has installed a hoist, elevator, or conveyor; in some cases
the feed dealer has carried a portable conveyor on the truck or used a body
jack arrangement. Some plants are so located that ramps to various floors
can safely be used.

Conversion to bulk feed can effectively solve the problems of elevating
feed so that it can be made available by gravity. With the auger-type system
the height to which feed can be elevated is limited with present equipment.
With the pneumatic-type system greater heights can be reached and also
greater horizontal distances can exist between truck setting position and
storage bins. These conclusions relate to conditions where no auxiliary
equipment is available on the farm, i.e., elevators and horizontal conveyors.
With the pneumatic-type system, feed is blown to the desired point through
a system of pipes extending from bins to the outside of the building. Or-

18

dinary stove pipe is frequently used. Another advantage in bulk delivery
lies in the elimination of the handling and emptying of 100-pound bags.

Figures 3 and 4 show some of the simpler ways to utilize gravity flow.
These exclude farm installations of elevators and horizontal conveyors.
Some of the first arrangements shown can be adapted equally well to bagged
or bulk feed; some of the later ones are probably better adapted to bulk
unloading.

Installations for Handling Bulk Feed.

Some diagrams of installations for handling bulk feed are shown in
Figures 5 and 6. With smaller units, bulk feed could be handled by gravity
flow on one or more floors and scooping or dipping on the top floor. The
second stage of complexity might occur where gravity flow is utilized to fill
carriers and automatic feeders. These two groups are illustrated in Figures
3 and 4. The installations in Figures 5 and 6 were designed for handling
bulk feed unloaded by the auger-type equipment at larger installations, in-
cluding for the largest plants, elevators and horizontal conveyors. Where
the plant is serviced by the pneumatic-type equipment, similar results could
be accomplished by a system of pipes between bins and the outside of the
building. Feed could thus be blown to desired points without auxiliary
equipment on the farm.

A practical point to note in considering delivery by auger-type vs.
pneumatic-type is that in the event of breakdowns of delivery equipment, it
is not possible to substitute one type for another. The auger-type cannot
reach bins at removed points; the pneumatic-type requires a system which
is more nearly airtight to prevent feed from being blown out of the storage
bins and to prevent dust danger. The choice between the two systems, aside
from what the feed dealer may offer as service, may be determined by the
presence or absence of serviceable auxiliary equipment in the farm.

Incorporating Existing Equipment When Shifting to Bulk Feed.

Likewise, in considering conversion from bagged to bulk feed, the
farm operator may wish initially to incorporate existing equipment into the
new system. Figure 7 shows two examples of the changeover from bagged
to bulk feed. In the first example the overhead bulk bin was substituted for
the first floor grain room, the carrier then being filled by gravity. Elimina-
tion of the first floor grain room released space for other uses. Next, an
automatic feeder was installed, and this was so placed that it could be
filled by gravity.

The second existing situation involved a third floor grain room where
bags were emptied into bins, with the second and first floor bins filled by
gravity. Fourth floor bins were filled by means of a belt elevator from the
third floor. This layout could readily be adapted to bulk feed, filling either
carriers or automatic feeders by gravity. If third floor bins could be filled
directly from the bulk delivery truck, downspouts could service the first
and second floors, either using automatic feeders on each floor or one on
either floor with a line running to the other floor. The fourth floor could be
serviced by retaining the belt elevator or by using automatic feeders on the
third floor with lines running up to the fourth floor.

19

JSe^OTyJ. floor

•fif-sf floor

A low cost bin for small houses if

grain is not delivered at sufficient

height for gravity flow on second

floor.

Fihst floor
Gt-a^ffy ovf/ef

A similar bin to the one above, but

designed for dipping out grain on

second floor.

Storage to carrier by gravity. If op-
erator uses a feed carrier, the carrier
platform can be converted into a box,
and the carrier truck can be relocated
in the grain room so that the box can
be filled by gravity.

Figure 3. Installations making use of gravity flow.

20

Storage to high carrier by gravity. Re-
ports from other states indicate that
a few operators have buih special
grain carriers which are suspended
from the usual carrier track but as
near the ceiling as practical. These are
filled by gravity from bins above the
grain room. By the use of flexible
metal pipe, hoppers within five feet
of the track can be filled by gravity.
The same equipment could be used
to fill small bins in each pen for use
in feeding pellets or scratch.

Storage to

automatic
gravity.

feeder by

D

Installation of storage bin and auto-
matic feeder equipped with mech-
anism to lift feed to upper floors.
A - Storage bin.
B - Automatic feeder.
C - Feed trough, first floor.
D - Feeder lift and trough, second
floor.

Figure 4. Additional installations making use of gravity flow.

21

*» Floor o1 Ujc<

■//// ///<i'°^'"^ J

Bill opening at truck floor level.
Originally operated with bagged feed,
but designed for bulk when available.
This is a pole-type, single-story house
with end ramp to aceonimodale truck.

a

D
a 1

n

NS

n

U U '^ ^ •_! r

(

Us

T

1^^:>>'I

Single-story house with overhead bins.
Carrier filled from spout.

Bulk bin on second floor filled from
bulk truck; first floor bin filled by
gravity. First and second floors ser-
viced by filling buckets with scoop
and pushing carrier. Third and fourth
floors serviced by hand cart loaded by
scoop and transported by elevator.

Overhead bin, dual spout serves both

an automatic feeder for two floors

and an outside outlet for filling range

cart.

Figure 5. Installations for handling feed in bulk.

22

Storage bin and elevator.
A - Storage bin.

B - Elevator.

C - Small bill.

D - Automatic feeder.

E - Baffle boards to prevent feed sep-
aration.

Installation to make feed available on
each floor of four-story dairy barn.

A - Side view of storage bins, (three
bins in a row.)

B - Baffle boards. (Installed in deep

bins to direct the flow of grain,

prevent separation and dust.)

C - Elevator boot filled by gravity
from any of these storage bins.

Discharge spout.

D
E

Two down spouts connected to
series of small bins on each
floor.

F - Small divided bins, one for mash
and one for scratch.

By use of a pneumatic-type bulk
truck for unloading, and a system of
pipes, the same result can be accom-
Ijlished without the elevator and
master storage bins.

vN

k^

kc

^'

:ii=S=

-1'V-

-41-

-Pv-

^

^

8x

Installation to make feed available by
gravity flow in each pen in four story

house.
A - Storage bins — mash and scratch.
B - Elevator.
C - Small holding bin.
D - Horizontal conveyor.
E - Small bins divided mash and

scratch.
F - Down spouts and outlets.

Figure 6. Additional installations for handling feed in bulk.

23

Example 1

^>

Left: feed room; carrier to pens loaded with bags. Center: bulk bins; carrier
to pens; can also load into vehicle outside for range. Right: bulk bins; auto-
matic feeder; can also load into vehicle outside for range.

Examijle 2

Feed Storage

\

Left: grain unloaded at third floor in bags; emptied into bulk bins. First and
second floor bins filled by gravity; fourth floor bins by belt elevator. Grain
scooped by hand into buckets and carried to pens. Right: grain unloaded at
third floor in bulk. First and second floor serviced by spouts; fourth floor
bins by belt elevator. Automatic feeders servicing each floor.

Figure 7. Examples of changing from bagged to bulk feed.

Time Requirements in Feeding Laying Hens.

As one phase of studying methods and facilities on commercial poultry
farms, operators were asked to provide data on time requirements in
feeding laying hens.

Table 13 contains examples of the effect of unit size on feeding time.
Enough records were taken to make estimates for several size intervals for
feed carried by hand and by carrier. In most other categories in Table 14,
such was not the case. Note that the data in Table 13 are also suggestive of
limitations to the decreasing feeding time per 100 birds as flock size in-
creases. With feed being carried into pens in pails, time per 100 birds
declines to the 2,101-3,600 interval, then rises. With carriers used, the
decline persists into the 3.601-7,000 interval, then rises.

The preceding illustrations of the effect of unit size involve suggestions
of diminishing efBciency in labor utilization beyond an optimum point.

24

Table 13. The EfFect of Flock Size on Feeding Efficiency Under Two Methods

Method and Interval

Number of

Average No.

Average No.

Man Minutes Daily

(No. of Birds)

Observations

Birds

Man Minutes Da

ily Per 100 Birds

Feed carried into pens by

hand

1,000 and under

5

764

42

5.50

1,001-2.100

18

1,588

65

4.07

2,101-3,600

7

3,000

93

3.10

3,601-7,000

6

5,683

184

3.24

10,000 and over

1
37

10,100

360
94

3.56

All Flocks

2,638

3.56

Feed into pens by carrier

1,000 and under

1

7.50

30

4.00

1,001-2,100

5

1,760

38

2.16

2,101-3,600

7

3,528

74

2.11

3,601-7,000

4

6,227

131

2.11

10,000 and over

1
18

15,000

360
90

2.40

All Flocks

4,120

2.18

Similar conclusions probably also would result from a detailed study of
pen size and number of pens in sequence. These considerations again em-
phasize the unit-by-unit approach to achieving maximum efficiency in the
grain-feeding operations. The "best" method for the particular farm, and
what degree of mechanization will be used, will be dependent upon size
and sequence considerations, feeding methods, individual operator's effic-
iency and aptitudes, existing farm facilities, and financial position, as well
as fixed and operating costs for various combinations. A special time-motion
study can be carried out for each individual plant plus a series of financial
budgets of various production alternatives in order to uncover optimum or-
ganization.

In Table 14 data on time requirements in feeding laying hens are
summarized for a number of categories. These data should be regarded as
relative rather than absolute since they are not adjusted to comparable
unit size, they include various feeding methods, and are derived from op-
erator's estimates rather than actual time studies.

The averages in Table 14 show a progressive decrease in feeding time
per 100 layers as grain supplies for the feeder are more systematically lo-
cated, and as the degree of mechanization increases. From 8.0 man minutes
daily per 100 layers, with scattered individual houses, time requirements in
feeding declined to 2.7 man minutes with systematically-located grain rooms
on each floor of multiple-story houses, but feed carried into pens by hand.
A similar setup to the latter, but with pens served by carrier, indicated
time requirements in feeding of 2.2 man minutes daily.

Data collected pursuant to preparation of Table 14 do not indicate
any compelling reasons why the installation of bulk feed as such will ma-
terially decrease feeding time. Actually many time savings can be realized
on some farms by rearrangement of facilities for handling grain in bags.
Given a good arrangement for handling and feeding grain in bags, the net
decrease in feeding time by conversion to bulk feed is likely to be small.

In Table 14, daily time requirements per 100 layers were 2.1 man
minutes where bulk feed was available by chute in each large pen, but car-

25

ried to hoppers by hand. This represents little difference from servicing
pens by carrier, or in part by hand, and requires a more elaborate setup
than having bulk feed available in the grain room. Bulk feed, however,
decreases physical effort, and facilitates the use of certain labor-saving
equipment such as elevators and horizontal conveyors on larger farms. It
eliminates the necessity for handling 100-pound bags, although filling a given
unit by gravity rather than by lifting and dumping bags may save little
time. Bulk feed lends itself well to fully-automatic feeding setups. Hence,
of more significance to poultrymen than time savings from simpler bulk
feed setups are the time savings to be realized by the installation of overhead
carriers and automatic feeders. The savings in chore steps made possible
by use of a carrier were diagramatically illustrated in Station Circular 73.*
In Table 14, there is a savings of 0.5 minutes daily per 100 layers between
carrying grain into pens in pails from the grain room and using a carrier
in feeding. The data also indicate a possibility of saving an additional 1.7
minutes daily by using an automatic feeder.

Table 14. Man Minutes Required Daily to Feed 100 Layers Under Various Systems

Multiple Single

Type of System Story Houses Story Houses

1. Central grain room for farm, scattered individual

houses served manually from this point 8.0

2. One grain room per house; feed carried to other

floors and into pens in pails 5.6 5.9

3. Grain room on most floors, but some served by
spouts and/or carrying; feed carried into pens

in pails 3.4 —

4. Grain room on each floor, systematically located;

feed carried into pens in pails 2.7 —

5. Grain room on each floor, systematically located;
bulk or bagged feed; feed carried to pens on

carrier, in bags, and in pails 2.4

6. Grain room on each floor, systematically located;

pens serviced entirely by carrier 2.2 2.7

7. Pens served by carrier, series of storage barrels

in pens filled; feed carried to hoppers in pails — 2.5

8. Bulk bins in each large pen; feed carried to

hoppers in pails 2.1 —

9. Grain located in center each smaller pen; feed

carried to hoppers in pails — 1.2

10. Combinations of bulk and bagged feed, with and
without carrier to pens; using automatic feeders

for part of feeding 1.6

11. Bulk feed; using automatic feeders, mash and

scratch 0.5

12. Bagged feed stored on second floor; downspout to
automatic feeder below; all mash system 0.33

* Piper, E. H. Chore Practices on New Hampshire Commercial Poultry Farms,
N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta., Sta. Circ. 73, June 1946, p. 4.

26

Comparative data on farms with a grain room on each floor, syste-
matically located, where pens were serviced by carrier show that on one
farm of over 10,000 layers only 1.3 man minutes were required daily per
100 birds for feeding. This farm fed an all-mash ration. Several farms with
an aggregate of over 22,000 layers that fed combinations of mash and scratch
and/or pellets required 2.6 man minutes daily per 100 birds. This is illus-
trative of the possibilities of increased labor efficiency through simplifica-
tion of the feeding program, but in no sense a judgement on the relative
output per bird which might be obtained. With automatic feeders, some
operators continue to hand feed scratch or pellets; others utilize attachments
in the automatic system for supplying these supplementary items to the
flock. In either case, some decrease in operator's time and/or operating time
for equipment is likely as the program is simplified.

Variation in the efficiency of different individuals is rather strikingly
illustrated by two farms. Both had a number of small grain rooms, con-
veniently located to minimize travel distance for the feeder. On one farm
with over 2,000 layers, feed was carried into pens in pails and feeding re-
quired 2.7 man minutes daily per 100 layers. On the other, with over 10.000
layers, workers carried 100-pound bags and filled hoppers directly from
these; here, only 1.4 man minutes daily were required per 100 layers. Al-
though part of the difference can be attributed to the respective unit sizes,
most of the remaining difference can be explained by the increased travel
time in carrying pails as against 100-pound bags and to the elimination of
emptying bags into bins or pails. Achievement of feeding efficiency by such
means is dependent upon the ability and willingness of farm workers to
undertake the rather arduous physical eft'ort required. Some degree of
mechanization is probably a more acceptable solution on most farms.

The farm where feeding took 1.4 man minutes daily per 100 layers is
also illustrative of a considerable amount of chore work cheaply performed
by the feed company in making grain deliveries. Grain had to be delivered
to almost 20 separate places, almost half of which required throwing 100-
pound bags up to the second story in unloading. This obviously made it
convenient for the feeder, but a difficult plant for the dealer to service. In
contrast to this plant, another farm with 9,000 birds housed in one building
had 3 grain rooms all accessible by ramps. Ramps are at times hazardous,
and as a result some feed companies are cautious about them. However, if
they are properly designed, this need not be a problem.

Due to the varying nature of existing farm facilities, as well as to the
present "competitive situation" (prevailing dealer policies), the feed dealer
must be somewhat flexible as regards making grain deliveries. Thus, while
the individual farm operator would benefit from having deluxe service in
placing his grain precisely where he wants it, that benefit is put at the ex-
pense of other operators whose plants require less of such servicing. Such
situations, whether by circumstances or design, certainly contribute to
maintaining an excessive cost of distribution.

'o

An Appraisal of Several Feeding Arrangements.

Basically, feeding arrangements can be grouped under four categories:

(1) Feed carried to pens and hoppers by hand.

(2) Feed available in pens, but carried to hoppers by hand.

(3) Feed brought to pens by carrier, hoppers filled by hand or gravity.

(4) Automatic feeders.

27

Under each of the four preceding categories, either bulk or bagged feed
may be involved. Subsequent discussions and appraisals will not specify
between these.

Under category (2) above, a number of examples can be observed in
Figures 1-4, and some variations of this category are shown in Table 14.
There is still another variation of this category used to some extent in the
Middle Atlantic region, but very little, if at all, in New England. This in-
volves floor-feed boxes filled from feed chutes directly above. A Pennsylvania
study reported this arrangement required less time and travel distance than
filling conventional feed hoppers.* Floor-feed boxes have not found favor
with New Hampshire poultrymen, nor have they been widely tested under
local conditions.

The problem with servicing individual pens by feed chutes seems to
be to fill bins and chutes by an efficient method. Time consumed in filling
by hand is likely to offset any savings in feeding time in the pens. However,
filling these supply lines can be accomplished expeditiously by elevator,
conveyor, or bulk delivery unit.

Another arrangement, which transcends categories (1-3) to some ex-
tent, is the use of hoppers of large size. These might effect a saving in labor
over smaller hoppers holding but a day's supply. Practical objections to
large hoppers include the added attention to prevent clogging of mash,
and the idea that it may not be good management to allow birds to pick
over a quantity of feed, leaving a residue in the bottom of the hopper which
can be refused. | Large hoppers, holding several days' supply, are also
not adaptable to limited feeding programs which are in widespread use.

Debate still continues on the pros and cons of automatic feeders.
Many of the opponents contend that hopper feeding affords the feeder the
opportunity to observe the birds more closely. It would seem more logical
to take advantage of labor-saving equipment and to set aside a portion of
the time so saved for unencumbered observation at regular intervals. Up
to a point combining various chores results in increased efficiency. For
example, many operations combine feeding with egg collection. However,
too many operations on a trip into the pens may actually impede efficiency.

That there are labor-savings inherent in the use of automatic feeders
is apparent from Table 14, as well as from other studies. A Cornell study
on broiler production yielded the data in Table 15. 4;

Table 15. Relationship Between Type of Feeders Used and Labor Efficiency
in Growing Broilers, New York State, 1951-1952

Type

of

Feeders

Used

Item

Automatic

Other

Number of lots
Number started per lot
Minutes of labor per bird:
Feed, water, and care
Total

17
8,405

1.6
2.2

17

9,982

3.4
4.4

* Bressler, G. O., op. cit., pp. 49-50.

t Klein, G. T., Saving Labor on Poultry Farms, N. H. Ext. Circ. 283, July 1947, p. 8.
JBriggs, G. W., Broiler Production in Neiv York State, 1951-52, Cornell Agr.
Exp. Sta. A. E. 846, Feb., 1953, Table 15, p. 14.

28

On a farm in Pennsylvania it was observed that the installation of a
mechanical feeder resulted in the saving of 9 minutes daily per 1,000 layers
as compared to hand feeding.f However, in a pen of 800 layers, this move
was barely profitable when costs of installation and operation were also
considered. On the same farm, when a feed carrier was installed, almost
6 minutes daily per 1,000 layers were saved as compared to hand feeding.
However, estimated time savings for a 10-year period were insufficient to
offset costs in a 24 X 110 foot house. t

The introduction of costs of installation and operation in comparison
to time savings is a necessary step toward appraisal of data such as that
in Table 14. Accordingly, there are presented in Table 16 estimates of the
annual costs of feeding 1,000 and 3,000 layers under three methods. These
involve categories 1, 3, and 4, i.e., feed carried to pens and hoppers by
hand; feed brought to pens by carrier with hoppers filled by hand; and,
automatic feeding. Data used in making cost estimates are only approx-
imate, and for purposes of illustrating an analytical method. Labor cost
estimates are projections of systems 4, 6, and 11 from Table 14.

Basic to any attachment of value to time savings is the supposition
that any time saved will be put to productive use or reflected in a reduction
in costs of hired labor. Examining the estimates in Table 16 within this
framework, it is apparent that the "cost" of chore feeding per 1,000 layers
is similar with all options. Hence, mechanization of the feeding operation
might not be the best use to make of added capital. However, at the 3,000-
bird level, net advantages appear with the mechanization, and added capital
appears warranted.

There is a further consideration into which the preceding appraisal
does not delve. If the time saved can be put to productive use in enlarging
an enterprise, or in adding other enterprises, then mechanization might be
considered with the smaller number of birds as well as with the larger
number.

Time Savings in Replacement Rearing.

That there has probably been an increase in efficiency in rearing re-
placement stock is suggested by comparing results from two studies. In
1929 it was found that 78 hours of chore work were required per 100 pullets
raised.* Number raised per farm surveyed was less than 1,700. In 1949
it was estimated that rearing a new laying flock and including the time
required to house pullets and cockerels took about 140 man hours per
1.000 chicks started. t Here, pullets ranged per farm averaged in excess
of 3,500.

Some factors in the increased labor efficiency, aside from increased
unit size, have been the shift from colony to continuous brooder houses,
the adoption of automatic or central heating in the brooding period, and
the utilization of automatic waterers. Emphasis on the preceding, as well
as on the adoption of automatic feeders, has probably been more marked
in meat-production enterprises than in raising laying flock replacements.

t Bressler, G. 0., op. cit., pp. 21, 50.

X Ibid., pp. 16, 50.

* Woodworth, H. C, and F. D. Reed, Economic Study of New Hampshire Poultry
Farms, N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 265, p. 16, May, 1932.

t Perry, E. C, Chore Practices on New Hampshire Commercial Poultry Farms,
//. Pullet Replacements. N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 79, pp. 3 and 13. April, 1949.

29

Table 16. Estimated Annual Costs of Chore Feeding per 1,000
and 3,0C0 Layers under Three Methods

Item of Cost

1,000 Layei

rs

3,000 Layers

I

Hand

Carrier

Automatic
Feeder

Hand

Carrier

Automatic
Feeder

Equipment depreciation
Interest, insurance, taxes
Repairs and maintenance
Operating-equipment costs

30.00
7.42
3.00

48.00

11.88

7.20

70.00
17.32
14.00
70.00

90.00

22.27

9.00

111.50
27.59
16.72

120.00
29.70
24.00

120.00

Sub-total
Labor cost in feeding^

40.42
164.25

67.08
133.83

171.32
30.42

121.27
492.75

155.81
401.50

293.70
91.25

Totals

204.67

200.91

201.74

614.02

557.31

384.95

^ Hours at SI. per hour.

Many of the modifications possible in feeding laying flocks can be
applied equally well to replacement rearing or growing meat chickens
in continuous housing. Admittedly, there are variations of details, and
since the data obtained did not specifically relate to the brooding period
or to meat enterprises, these are not elaborated upon herein. However,
data were obtained relative to feeding methods followed in growing re-
placement stock on range.

The development of new procedures for handling grain for birds on
range has not kept pace with innovations designed for house feeding. Of
20 growers interviewed, only 3 were using bulk storage bins. All but 2
were feeding at least mash in hoppers. Five stored grain in buildings, bins,
or barrels on the range itself; 3 were trucking direct from the mill or
the grain dealer's truck to their ranges. The 2 growers not using range
hoppers were drawing pellets and scratch from bulk bins and scattering
them on the range from a truck or lime spreader.

Two possible economies of time appear from the data collected, i.e.,
less frequent feeding and elimination of hoppers (Table 17). On the average,
filling hoppers once or twice ppr week was less time consuming than daily
filling. One grower who filled hoppers twice a week, but permitted his
birds free choice of mash or scratch in hoppers in the proportion of 2:1,
required the lowest number of man minutes daily in feeding per 100 birds
in the sample of 20. Both less frequent feeding and elimination of hoppers

Table 17. Man Minutes Required Daily to Feed 100 Pullets on Range

Man Minutes/Day per
Type of System 100 Pullets

Daily feeding, at least mash in hoppers 1.61
Daily feeding, pellets and scratch drawn from bulk bin

and scattered from truck or lime spreader, no hoppers 1.00

Less-than-daily filling of hoppers, at least mash in hoppers .74

30

are likely to be controversial issues since some will contend they practice
daily hopper feeding because it gives more flexibility, better growth, and
less wastage of feed.

As was found true in house feeding, there are two additional possible
economies in handling grain for range feeding, i.e., simplification of the
feeding program and elimination of one or more handlings of bagged
grain. The former is also likely to be controversial as regards results. The
effectiveness of the latter admittedly rests upon the supposition of proper
layout. Diagrammed in Figure 8 are the handlings under various alternatives.

GRAIN AT THE MILL

^ L !

BAGS STORED IM
GRAIN ROOM-
NOT ON RANGE

\

SULK FEED STDSEO
IN GRAIN ROOM-
NOT ON RANGE

HOPPERS OR SCATTERED

- - KEY - -
i-MOST COMMON KETHOOi L-LirT

S- SPOUT
C-CiilRY

-ALTERNATE

D-OIP

E- EMPTY FROMBAS

P- POUR FROM PAI L

Figure 8. Alternative steps in range
feeding.

Full use of the most direct means of handling is not being made with
either bagged or bulk feed. Neither are the prevailing methods the most
indirect. Delivery by the grain dealer direct to range hoppers or to range
storage would seem to offer possibilities of time savings to growers. With
the latter, it would probably not be generally inconvenient to the dealer.
Also, there is the general objection of the possibility of spreading disease
from one range to another.

Some methods of saving labor in feeding replacement stock on range
are shown in Figure 9. These are all in use in this or other areas.

31

Large capacity range feeder holding
several days' or a week's supply.

Range hoppers can be filled by gravity
flow from a home made trailer.

For large flocks of pullets or turkeys
on range. Commercial equipment is
available for conveying feed from
trailer to large hoppers. Power take-
off from small tractor is used.

Installation of storage bin so that
gravity flow can be used in supplying
feed to the range. A portable bin near
the range may be best for some large
ranges. Gravity flow can eliminate one
handling and possibly two.

Figure 9. Time-saving management programs to consider in range feeding.

32

4. Efficiency of the Grain-Feeding Operation

on Dairy Farms

MANY dairymen over the years have made substantial improvements
in operating efficiency,* through improved buildings and building
arrangements, crop production and harvesting adjustments, disease control,
breeding programs, and improved chore practices.f As with the New Hamp-
shire poultry industry, numbers of farms engaged in dairying have de-
clined materially over the past two decades. There were milk cows on 11,018
farms in 1930, 10,572 farms in 1940, and 7,603 farms in 1950. Average herd
size increased over 25 percent from 1930 to 1950; milk production per
cow was up over 20 percent.

Table 18 shows the growing importance of larger units. In 1939,
29.9 percent of farms reporting milk cows had 10 cows or over, and herds
of 10 cows or over accounted for 63.0 percent of the total number of milk
cows. In 1950, these proportions were 22.3 percent and 75.8 percent, re-
spectively.

Table 18. Shifts in Percentage Distribution of Farms and Milk Cows,
by Herd Size, New Hampshire, 1939-1950

No. of

Percent

of Farms

Reporting

Percent of Cows

Milk Cows

1930

1944

1939

1950

1944

1939

1- 2

45.9

50.4

45.5

7.8

10.2

10.1

3- 4

9.6

10.1

14.4

4.1

5.0

7.8

5- 9

14.6

14.8

17.8

12.3

14.8

19.1

10-19

19.2

15.1

15.9

33.6

30.4

33.4

20-29

5.9

7.1

4.3

17.2

24.4

15.6

30 and over

4.8

2.5

2.1

25.0

15.2

14.0

Source: Census of Agriculture, 1940, 1945, 1950.

Output per man has increased on dairy farms. At the same time, adop-
tion of new practices and machinery have increased capital requirements.
Any attempts to mechanize grain feeding will add to capital requirements
and should decrease labor requirements, but the net result on the farmer's
income can only be determined by balancing one against the other.

There is probably less time-savings incentive for dairy farmers to re-
arrange or relocate facilities for storing grain, to adopt bulk feed, or to
improve feeding arrangements than there is for poultrymen. Feeding grain
to dairy cattle in itself does not take a very significant share of total chore
time. In Table 19, for example, only 7 minutes daily are devoted to grain
preparation and feeding of the milking herd. Total feeding takes 46 minutes,
and total daily chores on cov/s 360 minutes. An additional 71 minutes
are listed for caring for young stock and calves (51) and spreading manure.

* Relative to cost reduction opportunities see Fellows, I. F. ; Frick, G. E.; and
Weeks, S. B., Production Efficiency on New England Dairy Farms. 1. A Preliminary
Appraisal of Cost Reduction Opportunities. Storrs Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 283, Jan., 1952.

t Feeding, manure disposal, and milking. An example of possibilities under the
latter may be found in the following publication: Woodworth. H. C; Morrow, K. S. ;
and Holmes, J. C, Efficient Dairy Cfiore Practices. Part II. Rapid Milking. N. H. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Circ. 76, June, 1947.

33

Table 19. Summary Estimates on Man Minutes to do Daily Chore Tasks
During Winter Period for 40-Cow Farm (35 Cows Miii<ing)l

Daily Chore Task^

Milking
Milking
Care of milk
Equipment

Feeding

Hay preparation
Hay feeding
Silage preparation
Silage feeding
Grain preparation
Grain feeding
Push feed to cows
Sweep manger

Cleaning

Manure disposal
Hoe to gutter
Sweep alleyway
Bedding preparation
Bedding
Superphosphate

Miscellaneous
Cows in and out
Currying

Total daily chore work on cows
Other

Time for spreading manure
Time on small calves
Young stock

Man Minutes Daily

175
5

45

10
10
10
5
1
6
2
2

40
4
2
2
5
1

15

20

20
16
35

225

46

54

35

360

71
431

1 Woodworth, H. C. and Morrow, K. S. Efficiency in the Dairy Barn, N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui.
387, June, 1951, Table 1, p. 51.

^ Estimates do not include occasional chores.

The preceding values are derived for very efficient conditions, and
may understate observed times on many operating farms. In any event, the
transition to relatively efficient grain feeding will yield small time savings.
For example, one farmer, with 25 cows, has an overhead bulk bin from
which he fills his feed cart. Grain feeding takes him 10 minutes per day.
Formerly, when he had to carry bagged grain downstairs to fill the cart,
it took about twice as long. However, the relatively small net savings of
time may still be a profitable one under some circumstances. Any additional
investment in building materials, equipment, or labor must therefore be
weighed against the value of time saved in feeding, and, if the shift in-
volves a change to bulk feed, possibly take into account the savings in cost
of feed. In the preceding example, time savings at $1 per hour, would
amount to $60.83 annually. At 1930 lbs, of grain per cow and a net savings
of $3 per ton, the savings in cost of feed would be $72.37* Between the two
savings, the farmer can obviously pay for the cost of his bulk bins within

* Not adjusted for savings of damage to grain bags when under bagged system.

34

a year or so. Thus, under some circumstances rearrangements in grain re-
ceiving, storing, and handling may prove quite profitable. However, such
rearrangements may frequently be delayed because of other time-saving
projects. But the farmer should weigh relative costs and sayings of various
changes. He may find that rather simple and inexpensive changes on grain
facilities often yield a higher rate of return than more elaborate and costly
moves.

Moreover, chore time on a dairy farm is a period when the require-
ments on workers' time are especially critical. Hence, any reduction in grain
feeding time may be enhanced since it occurs during the critical time periods.

Improving Efficiency Through Location and Rearrangement.

The locational aspects of the rearrangement of facilities for receiving,
storing, and feeding grain on dairy farms must be made in consideration of
future rearrangements of facilities for feeding hay and silage, cleaning,
milking, handling milk, and the storage of bedding. Hence, a detailed pre-
sentation on the relative merits of alternative locations of grain facilities
would immediately involve us with all the other phases in the larger issue
of maximizing efficiency in the dairy barn. There are a number of recent
appraisals directed toward this goal under New Hampshire conditions.*

An earlier study illustrates that the optimum barn arrangement from
standpoints of grain room location and travel distance may coincide with
total minimum travel distance for a number of chores. f For example, in a
40-cow barn where there was no center alley, and cows faced out, travel
distance in grain feeding was 450 feet where the grain room was located
in the end, side end, or side middle. When cows faced in, and the grain
room was located in the end, travel distance was 324 feet. However, aggre-
gate travel distance for grain feeding plus travel to and from milkhouse,
silo, superphosphate storage, bedding storage, and manure disposal was
5,879 feet in the former situation and 6.598 in the latter. In the same example,
the net increase in travel distance resulted from an increase in milkhouse
travel, while there were decreases for all other components.

No data are available to indicate accurately the time savings which may
exist in grain-feeding in a milking parlor vs. stanchion stable. The former
is much less common to New Hampshire than to some other areas, though
there is much to recommend the pen-stable-milking parlor combination. In
terms of new construction, building costs are slightly less with pen stables
that incorporale the best present ideas than with stanchion stables.t In
small herds with pen stables more total-chore labor may be required per
cow.§ However, studies in other areas suggest there is a small net labor

* Woodworth, H. C. and K. S. Morrow, Efficiency in the Dairy Barn, op. cit.
Abell, M. F., Labor-Saving Barns, N. H. Coop. Ext. Service, Ext. Bui. 121 April,
1954.

Abell, M. F., Stabling and Milking Arrangements (unpublished).

t Holmes, J. C, Efficiency Dairy Chore Practices, Part 1, Chore Travel in Dairy
Barns, N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 72, June, 1946, p. 9.

t Abell, M. F., op. cit., p. 9.

§ Ibid, p. 7.

35

savings with a well-arranged pen stable.! For grain feeding, it appears pos-
sible to secure comparable efficiency with either a pen stable or stanchion
stable setup, if both are properly designed and management is good.

There are a number of general observations about the location of grain
facilities which can be made. These should l)e considered as an integral
part of the entire program of maximizing effiiciency in the dairy barn, de-
pending upon present facilities and methods, and whether the basic layout
involves a stanchion or pen stable. Some of these are:

(1) Keep grain in one place. For example, if the present setup in-
volves storage of grain in bags at one point, and filling grain bins at another
point (from which point grain feeding begins), locate all grain at an optimum
place and eliminate one handling.

(2) Investigate overhead-grain storage where there are space or ar-
rangement problems at the stable level. Use of this method suggests the
feasibility of a downspout from a bin which can be filled by bulk delivery
equipment or from bags at the convenience of farm workers. When a pen-
stable-milking parlor arrangement is involved, there may be merit in storing
grain away from the moist conditions of the milking parlor.

(3) Take advantage of the "work center" approach in order to min-
imize travel distance."''' With stanchion stables, grain outlets should logically
be in the "feeding work center". With pen stables and a milking parlor,
grain outlets and feeding equipment may be in the '"milking work center".

A fourth consideration, which appears initially to be of most signifi-
cance and benefit to the grain dealer, but which in the final analysis bears
upon the cost of grain, is that of the location and accessibility of the farm
receiving and storage facilities. These should be planned and located to per-
mit efficient delivery. Generally this would mean locating grain receiving
and storage facilities against or near an outside wall bordering an all-
weather driveway.

The Nature of Facilities for Receiving, Storing, and Handling Grain.

To provide a background on present practices in New Hampshire,
methods of receiving, storing, and handling grain were observed on 53
dairy farms. Frequency of delivery of grain to the farm was recorded in 44
cases; of these 17 received grain once per week, 19 every 2 weeks, one once
per month and 7 at somewhat irregular periods.

As can be noted from Table 20, grain was most frequently stored in the
feed alley or in front of the cows. A smaller number had stable grain rooms.
Seven farms had overhead-bulk bins with spouts to the stable, and 5 had
overhead grain rooms for bagged feed. About three-fifths of the farms fed
grain from feed carts, the remainder from buckets.

$Van Arsdall, R. M.; Ibach, D. B.; and Cleaver, T., Economic and Functional
Characteristics of Farm Dairy Buildings, 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. in Cooperation with
U.S.D.A., Bui. 570, Nov., 1953.

Byers, G. B., Effect of Work Methods and Building Design on Building Costs
and Labor Efficiency for Dairy Chores, Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 589, June, 1952.

Brown, L. H., A Comparative Analysis of Stanchion and Milking Parlor Barns,
Work Simplification News Letter, Purdue Work Simplification Lab., Issue No. 19,
June, 1948.

Brown, L. H.; Cargill, D. F.; and Bookhout, B. R., Pen-Type Dairy Barns, Mich.
Agr. Exp. Sta., Spec. Bui. 363, June, 1950.

* Woodworth, H. C, and Morrow, K. S., op. cit., pp. 10-14

36

Table 20. Methods of Storing and Feeding Grain on Selected Dairy Farms

Storing

Method

No. of Farms

Feeding

Method

No. of Farms

Overhead-bulk bins 7

Overhead-bagged storage 5

Stable grain room 12
Storage in feed alley

or in front of cows 20

Storage in separate building 2

Total 46

Feed cart
Bucket

29
19

Total

48

On more than half the farms, unloading time, time in getting grain to
the feed alley, and the carrying of 100-pound bags had been minimized by
arrangements for receiving and storing grain. Table 21 presents a summary
of distances observed.

Table 21. Distances in Unloading, from Grain Storage to Feed Alley, and in Carrying
100-pound Bags Between Storage and Feed Alley, Selected Dairy Farms

Numbers

of Farms

Reporting

Distance

Distance

100

lb

. Bags Carried

Distance in

Distance from

Truck

from Grain St

orage

Between Grain Storage

Feet

to

Grain Stoiagc

t

o Feed Alley

ar

id

Feed Alley

None

29

31

21

1-10

14

6

5

11-20

4

4

4

21-30

2

6

5

31-40

1

1

0

41-50

1

0

0

51-60

1

2

1

61-70

0

2

0

Total

52

52

36

The greater the distance over which grain must be carried between
truck and grain storage, the greater the time per bag required in unloading.
Minimizing this distance in locating grain storage facilities would increase
the efficiency of grain delivery and decrease the time required of farm help
who may assist in unloading.

Another locational consideration is the distance from the grain storage
to the feed alley. As this distance increases, so does the time required in
grain feeding. In a number of cases 100-pound bags were carried varying
distances in the transfer of grain from storage to feed alley. This lifting
could probably be avoided entirely by minor changes in methods.

Some Grain-Feeding Arrangements for Dairy Farms.

Some of the types of arrangements for receiving, storing, and feeding
grain on dairy farms are diagrammed below. Six represents a completely

37

mechanized setup similar to that developed at Penn. State.* Another pos-
sible mechanization in a pen-stable milking-parlor arrangement can be
achieved by modification of 8. Such a change would be toward metering
feeders and a drag conveyor, as developed at Michigan State. f

An Appraisal of Several Feeding Arrangements.

Table 22 measures approximately the effects of alternative methods of
grain handling and feeding upon equipment overhead and operating and
labor costs. Under Situation A, it is assumed that we are working with the
25-cow herd previously mentioned in the text, where grain was stored in an
overhead-grain room, and the operator carried or dropped bagged grain
downstairs and filled the grain cart. Under these conditions it took 20
minutes per day to feed. With Situation B, he installed an overhead-bulk
bin from which he filled the grain cart and feeding time declined to 10
minutes daily. Under Situation C, it is assumed the operator installed the
Penn. State Mechanical system for stanchion stables with bulk feed, and cut
feeding time to 2.5 minutes daily. ijl

It is apparent that the time savings from installing an overhead-bulk
bin and downspout are more than sufficient to offset the overhead costs on
the additional investment, even without taking into account a savings in the
purchase price of bulk vs. bagged feed. Installing the mechanical system,
however, causes overhead and operating costs of such magnitude that they
more than offset resultant time savings. However, considered with the bulk
feed savings, the net results might be closer to net results with Situation A.
Nevertheless, Situation B still appears to represent the best choice of the
three methods.

The preceding comparisons dealt with alternatives in a stanchion
stable. The same approach can be applied to feeding grain in a milking
parlor. There is probably little difference in time required for grain feeding
with either a stanchion stable or a milking parlor, when similar facilities
and practices exist. It is contended by some that grain feeding can be more
effectively combined with other chores in a milking parlor, whereas in a
pen-stable it is more or less a distinct operation. On the other hand, with
a milking parlor, the operator must go to the feed supply and make the
rounds of the stalls with each new batch let in for milking. This arrangement
might mean fewer feet of travel, but probably no less time in the aggregate
for the grain feeding operation.

Hence, in Situations D and E, it is assumed that the daily grain feeding
times equal 20 and 10 minutes, respectively. With D it is assumed that there
is an overhead-grain room. The operator carries or drops bags of grain
downstairs, fills a storage barrel in the milking parlor, and feeds out of this
barrel with a scoop scale. With the latter (E) it is assumed that an overhead-
bulk bin with a downspout is constructed. The barrel can then be filled per-
iodically by gravity flow. Under Situations F and G, it is assumed that a

* Penn. State Mechanical Dairy Feeder, Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta., Progress Report
No. 110, Nov., 1953.

t Letter from Dept. of Agr. Eng., Mich. State College, East Lansing. Mich..
May 6, 1954.

tThis system consists essentially of an automatic pouhry feeder with elevating
and conveying features to fill a series of telescoping feed meters. Meters are set indi-
vidually as necessary to deliver the desired amount of grain to each cow. A time
switch operates the feeder. Each meter is connected to the feed release mechanism —
which is operated by pulling a handle at one end of the stable.

38

bulk bin is installed and that metering devices will be used on the down-
spouts. The difference between F and G is that the former is assumed to be
completely mechanized* and the latter dependent upon gravity flowf to
the metering devices. For both Situations F and G, where the feeding oper-
ation itself is identical, it is assumed that daily feeding time will be six
minutes, or somewhat in excess of the completely mechanized stanchion-
stable arrangement in Situation C.

In comparing Situations D and E in Table 22, it is again apparent that
constructing the overhead-bulk bin with downspout results in time savings
more than sufficient to offset the depreciated value of the additional invest-
ment, even without taking into account a savings in the purchase price of
bulk vs. bagged feed. While the cost of a mechanized system is somewhat
less in the milking parlor than in a stanchion stable — 3 stalls vs. 25
stanchions to be fitted with downspouts and meters — it still does not
effect as much net savings as a bulk bin and downspout alone. The real
potential of the metering feeder would best be realized if we could service
these 3 outlets by gravity from a bulk bin rather than by overhead con-
veying equipment.

It must be acknowledged that the starting point for the analyses in
Table 22, i.e., an overhead grain room from which the operator carries
bagged or drops grain downstairs to fill a grain cart or barrel, is not the
most efficient means of handling bagged feed. However, it may be fairly

Table 22. Estimated Annual Costs of Chore Feeding of Grain
to a 25-Cow Herd Under Assumed Situations^

Stanchion

Stable

Milk:

ing Parlor

Item of Cost

A

S

B

$

c

s

D

S

E
$

F

s

G
S

Equipment depreciation
Interest, insurance, taxes
Repairs and maintenance
Operating costs

2.502
.61
.25

15.003
3.71
1.50

112.50*
27.83
21.25
50.00

1.105

.27
.11

13.606
3.37
1.36

70.00"
17.32
12.75
50.00

150.07

36.50

186.57

22.508
5.56
3.00

Sub-total

Labor cost in feeding^

3.36
121.66

20.21
60.83

211.58
15.21

1.48
121.66

18.33
60.83

31.06
36.50

Total

125.02

81.04

226.79

123.14

79.16

67.56

^ Situations explained in text.

^ Homemade grain cart, scoop scale.

^ Homemade grain cart, scoop scale, bulk bin.

* Bulk bin, automatic feeder, 25 stanchion meters.
^ Scoop scale, storage barrel.

' Scoop scale, storage barrel, bulk bin.

' Bulk bin, automatic feeder, 3 metering feeders.

* Bulk bin, 3 metering feeders.
8 Hours at $1.00 per hour.

* This system approximates the Michigan State plan for milking parlors. It is
assumed that an automatic poultry feeder with elevating and conveying features wiU
be used to fill a series of hoppers. On the downspouts, metering feeders, operating on
the principal of an auger in a tube, turned by a handle, will be located. These de-
liver about two pounds per revolution of the handle, depending on density of the grain.
Commercial companies retail this device for about $25 each.

t It is assumed in Situation G that the bulk bin can be modified so that gravity
flow will fill a hopper above each metering device.

39

representative in terms of grain feeding time of practices on many New
Hampshire farms. Probably a well located grain room off the stanchion
stable would be almost as efficient in terms of grain feeding time as an
overhead-bulk bin and downspout, but not nearly so desirable in terms of
the amount of physical effort or the cost of feed. There is another advantage
inherent in the bulk method — release of space which might be used for
other purposes.

In any study involving time savings, these are of real value only if time
saved can be put to productive use or if a real decrease in hired labor costs
is realized.

Size of herd undoubtedly has considerable bearing upon the selection
of an optimum method of feeding grain. As size increases, the cost of extra
construction and mechanization equipment per unit tends to decline. There
is also a tendency for labor requirements per unit to decline. Where bulk
feed is concerned, there are herd sizes below which the feed dealer will
not wish to go in extending bulk-feed service. With every-other-week de-
livery, a 20-25 cow herd could use a ton of grain about every two weeks.

(1) (2) (3)

Cow Si able

Feed
Room

Left: grain storage on barn floor, downspout to feed cart in basement stable.
Center: grain storage on barn floor. Operator climbs stairs from basement
stable, throws down bag of grain through trap door, and empties this into
feed cart. Right: grain storage at ground level in room off stable. Bags un-
loaded from truck onto chute.

(4)

Cow

Stable

Grain Sforoge
in bags or bin
ai end of alley

F^F^f^F^--^

r\

Metering
Device*

Lever

Left: grain stored in stable feed alley. In another variation, grain is stored
in bags in a feed room and bags emptied into a bin near feed alley. Bucket
is used in feeding. Center: grain stored in a bulk bin located above the stable.
Downspout to feed cart. Right: grain stored in a bulk bin located above the
stable. This is the Pennsylvania State mechanical dairy feeder. A downspout
fills automatic poultry feeder unit. Endless chain fills individual meters above
each stanchion. These are set individually. A hand lever is pulled to open
meter-bottom slides. A rather costly installation.

Figure 10. Some grain-feeding arrangements in stanchion stables on dairy

farms.

40

If the minimum amount were two tons, such a unit would be able to use
a load every four weeks. With company policies and inadequate knowledge
about the keeping characteristics of feed, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly
the minimum-sized herd which can come under bulk-feed service.

For New Hampshire conditions, this translates itself into two groupings,
those to whom bulk feed is unavailable and who should progress toward
the most efficient means of handling bagged feed, and those to whom bulk
feed is available and who can take advantage of gravity flow. It does not
seem at this time that the plans for complete mechanization of feeding grain
to milk cows are as desirable costwise as bulk feed gravity-flow arrange-
ments.

(7)

Grain
R oom

Mi/kfng
Parlor

Grain stored in small room off milking
parlor. Bucket used in feeding.

Grain stored in bulk bin located above
the milking parlor. Downspout to (a)
bucket used in feeding, or (b) barrels
used to store day's supply. Possible
variation toward mechanization in-
clude bulk bin, automatic feeder, end-
less chain, and meters, or several
downspouts from bulk bin to meters.
The former is similar to Michigan
State milking room feeder.

Figure 11. Grain-feeding arrangements in pen stables and milking parlors

on dairy farms.

Dry Cows and Young Stock.

Most of what has been said with respect to milk cows will apply to
dry cows and young stock, insofar as stanchion stables are concerned.
With loose housing, or pen stables, the problem of feeding grain is some-
what different. First, there may be no central point through which the
animals pass. Second, the problem of feeding different amounts of grain is
less important than with milk cows. Feeding grain to such animals in pen
stabling might be similar to the feeding of beef cattle, where little or no at-
tempt can be made to see that each animal gets a certain amount, but only
that an average of so much grain per head is fed. There are mechanical
systems for feeding hay, silage, and grain to beef cattle. The various feed
items are generally mixed together and conveyed to the feeding area. Be-
cause of the relatively small numbers of animals involved on New Hampshire
dairy farms, such methods do not seem to have general applicability at this
time.

41

5. Conclusions

TH E question of improving the efficiency of the receiving and handling
of grain-feeds on farms is, in application, best approached on an in-
dividual unit basis. Neither farm layouts nor management factors are stan-
dardized. Thus, the design of facilities can only rarely be identical from farm
to farm. The objective in this bulletin has not been to present a complete
list of possibilities, but to suggest a few, leaving application to ingenuity.
Some specific designs for feed handling facilities are available from college
and trade sources.

Farm operators need to ration capital expenditures. The choice of
improvement projects can be made by considering the net savings various
changes yield. Feed handling is likely to rank near the top of the list for
poultrymen, but much lower for dairymen.

Having feed delivered to the farm in bulk does not necessarily assure
significant time savings. What counts more is the feeding arrangements
and mechanization into which bulk feed can readily fit.

Savings in the purchase price of bulk feed must ultimately reflect some
of the savings, if any, in handling costs of feed companies. Initial discounts
may tend to reflect in addition what competing feed companies offer as
an incentive to farmers to convert to bulk feed.

Although difficult to quantify, the effects of improved methods of re-
ceiving and handling feeds on the labor force are important. Taking the
"lift and lug" out of feed handling may not only enhance the attractiveness
of farm work and permit family members to perform chores in emergencies,
but may also contribute to the productivity of regular workers at tasks
other than feeding.

The adoption of the pneumatic-type equipment, either in regular bulk
delivery trucks or in the attachment of a unit to bagged delivery trucks,
has added to the flexibility of farm systems for handling feed. One of the
major problems in simplification has been that of economically locating
supplies at convenient points. The pneumatic system is admirably suited
for this purpose.

42

630.72
N532

no. 426-450

DAlb DUE

W0V4 .fi4

iAY 19^

S*o^ • '\

^cT.ga'si

1

i
1

F32a

.v.. •-: