(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Electric power for the farm"

LIBRARY OF THE 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 




WO.N CIRCULATING 

CHECK FOR UNBOUND 
CIRCULATING CORY 



; UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

Agricultural Experiment Station 



BULLETIN No. 332 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



BY E. W. LEHMANN AND F. C. KINGSLEY 




URBANA, ILLINOIS, JUNE, 1929 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

FOREWORD 375 

THE TEST FARMS 378 

CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL LINE 385 

ENERGY CONSUMPTION ON EACH FARM 389 

SCOPE OF EQUIPMENT STUDIES 400 

HOUSEHOLD USES OF ELECTRICITY 401 

USES OF ELECTRICITY IN FARM PRODUCTION 429 

BIGGEST PROBLEM IS TO DEVELOP A "PAY" LOAD 466 

ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF FARM RATES 469 

APPENDIX 471 

SUMMARY.. . 478 



FOREWORD 

Farmers will be slow to install electrical equipment and pay for 
electric energy unless it can be demonstrated that by so doing they 
can actually save money or that the conveniences and comforts made 
possible by electricity fully justify the necessary expenditures. 

The power companies and even the manufacturers of electrical 
appliances and equipment may be obliged to market their products 
at prices which for a time may mean a loss, in order to develop a 
sufficient volume of business to bring them a reasonable return. 

It would be of mutual advantage to all concerned if such rates 
and policies for supplying electric service were formulated that, in a 
reasonably short time, an increase in the use of energy and electrical 
equipment would lower the prices so that farmers could afford to buy 
and power companies afford to sell. 

The Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station recognizing these facts 
undertook this study and, in line with the policy of the Station, an 
advisory committee was selected to assist in the investigation. Thru 
the work of this committee the project on the use of electricity in agri- 
culture was outlined. Funds for carrying out the project were pro- 
vided by the Illinois State Electric Association. The members of 
the committee were as follows: 

H. W- Mumford, Dean of the College of Agriculture, University 
of Illinois, (chairman) 

E. W. Lehmann, Professor of Farm Mechanics, University of Illi- 
nois, (secretary) 

H. C. M. Case, Professor of Farm Organization and Management, 
University of Illinois 

J. Paul Clayton, Vice-President, Central Illinois Public Service 
Company, Springfield, Illinois 

Lloyd Yost, Fairbanks-Morse & Company, Beloit, Wisconsin 

Bert H. Peck, Illinois Power & Light Corporation, St. Louis, 
Missouri 

H. E. Worden, Central Illinois Light Company, Peoria, Illinois 

Mrs. H. M. Dunlap, farm homemaker, Savoy, Illinois 

J. P. Stout, farmer, Chatham, Illinois 

H. H. Parke, farmer, Genoa, Illinois 

E. A. Eckert, farmer, Mascoutah, Illinois 



375 




ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINES SUPPLYING CURRENT TO FARMS 

AND TOWNS, 1928 

There are over 9,000 miles of interconnected high voltage lines now built 
in Illinois. About 4,000 miles of these transmission lines are of sufficiently 
low voltage so that farmers can obtain current, and the mileage of such lines 
ia being increased rapidly. The above map shows how these lines are dis- 
tributed over the state. The heavy lines are those from which farmers can 
get service by the use of a transformer. The light lines are those with volt- 
ages from which it is not practical for farmers to get service. 



376 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 

BY E. W. LBHMANN AND F. C. KINGSLEY* 

High voltage distribution lines now extend to practically every 
section of the state of Illinois. It has approximately 9,200 miles 
of interconnected lines serving over 1,200 towns and cities. About 
4,000 miles of line are of low enough voltage so that farmers may 
secure service from them, and many of the high-voltage lines are 
so designed that a lower voltage may be strung on the same towers 
or poles at a great saving in cost. There are also approximately 
1,200 miles of lines built especially for farm service. Thus a net- 
work of electric lines offers great possibilities for supplying elec- 
tricity to Illinois farms and farm homes. 

Another source of electricity for the farm is the unit electric 
plant. Such a plant fills a real need where electricity cannot be se- 
cured from a power line/ It furnishes adequate energy for lighting, for 
household appliances, and for minor power up to one horsepower, 
but it is not adequate for larger power operations or for cooking. 
The central station plants are much more economical producers of 
power where large quantities are involved. It holds true in the country 
as well as in the city that the individual who uses sufficient power 
so that he can secure service at a reasonable rate from a high-volt- 
age line cannot afford to operate a plant of his own. The results 
of a study of five unit plants are given in the Appendix on pages 
471 to 473. 

The problem of supplying power from the central station to the 
farm is largely one of delivery costs and of getting the customer 
to make sufficient use of the service to pay both him and the com- 
pany. Electricity used on farms in the past has been largely for 
lighting the home. An electric load of this type does not return a 
direct income to the farmer to offset the expense incurred, nor does 
it give sufficient return to the utility company to pay for the service. 

From surveys made by the University it is apparent that many 
farmers who have electric power service are failing to use it for 
the numerous operations to which it is easily adapted. The average 
energy consumption per farm over the state is very low; on some 
lines it was found to be less than 30 kilowatt hours a month. At the 
rates charged, this does not bring in sufficient income to the utility 
companies to justify them in extending lines to farms and providing 
transformers and other equipment needed to make satisfactory service 
possible. 

J E. W. LBHMANN, Chief in Farm Mechanics; and F. C. KINGSLBT, formerly Assistant in 
Farm Mechanics. J. C. BOTTUM, formerly Assistant in Farm Mechanics, assisted with the study 
during a part of the period and gave special assistance in the preparation of the farm manage- 
ment phase of the manuscript. 

377 



378 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

The first study (1923) was based on 93 farm homes in Bureau 
county having electric service. While all 93 homes were lighted with 
electricity, only 50 percent used electric motors for limited power 
operations, including pumping, grain grinding, grain elevating, and 
household operations. Gasoline engines were still being used for power 
by 27.9 percent and windmills for pumping were used by 53.6 percent. 
Service from power lines had been available for one to ten years. A 
later survey (1926) covered several thousand Illinois farms. While all 
used electricity for lighting, only 75 percent had electric irons, 49 
percent electric washers, 28 percent electric vacuum cleaners, 22 per- 
cent electrically operated pumps, 12.8 percent toasters, 6.7 percent 
fans, 6.4 percent power-driven separators, 5.7 percent electric ranges, 
3.0 percent motor-driven milkers, and 1.4 percent electric refriger- 
ators. A number of small appliances were being used but they con- 
stituted a very small part of the total. 

Several factors, therefore, led to the study reported in this bulle- 
tin, namely: 

1. The desirability of adequate electric service for convenience 
and comfort in the farm home. 

2. The growing demand for electric service on the part of farm- 
ers and the consequent need for reliable information concerning the 
practicability of its use on farms. 

3. The availability of electric current to Illinois farms. 

4. The desire of the utilities companies to find practicable ways 
of supplying electric service to farmers. 



Character and Organization 

Recognizing the principle that the cost per unit of electricity 
is dependent upon the number of units used, the first step in this 
investigation was to determine whether sufficient use of electricity 
could be made on farms to develop a load that would be economical to 
the farmer and practicable from the standpoint of the utility company. 
An experimental line was built and electric service rendered to ten 
farms. In addition to using electricity for household appliances, steps 
were taken to electrify all belt-power operations on these ten farms 
and to develop new economic uses, so far as possible. 

All ten farms were occupied by owners, except one, and the oper- 
ator of this farm rented from his father. Farm 9 was occupied by 
a retired farmer who rented practically all his land to other farmers 
in the community, and No. 6 was occupied by a widow whose land 
was rented. Thus in the group of ten there were eight active farmers. 
The discussion and data in the tables dealing with the production 
side of the farms is based on the eight active farms. 



19S9] 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



379 



The area farmed by the eight active farmers was from 160 to 
515 acres. The four smaller farms, Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 8, averaged 
190 acres. The four larger farms, Nos. 1, 5, 7, and 10, averaged 400 
acres. While all were essentially grain farms, Nos. 2 and 8, con- 



Mined 

Livestock 

(2) 



Beef 

and 

hogs 




General 
Farming 
(Wheat Corn 



FIG. 1. FARMING-TYPE AREAS OF ILLINOIS AND NUMBER 

OF FARMS PER SQUARE MILE IN COUNTIES 
In east-central Illinois, where the tests reported in this 
bulletin were made, there are fewer farms per square mile 
than in any other section of the state. Corn and oats are 
the major craps. 

sisting of 160 acres each, produced considerable poultry. The other 
two of the smaller farms, No. 3 with 240 acres and No. 4 with 203 
acres, each had a sufficient number of cows to justify the use of an 
electric milking machine. 

Of the group of larger farms, No. 1, consisting of 280 acres, was 
devoted strictly to grain production. No. 5, 320 acres, differed from 



380 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



No. 1 in that there was a small income from livestock. No. 7, 480 
acres, had a small amount of livestock and specialized in soybeans 
and seed corn. No. 10, 515 acres, was a representative grain farm 
with only enough livestock to consume roughages. 

The average amount of land farmed by the ten cooperators, in- 
cluding both owned and rented land, was 295 acres, and the average 
value of each farm was $65,444. 

These test farms are located in Champaign county, in the level, 
fertile, grain-growing section of east-central Illinois, where corn and 
oats are the major crops and where the larger portion of these crops 
is marketed directly. It is believed, however, that there were as 
many representative types of farms on the test line as it would be 
possible to find in most localities in Illinois. 

TABLE 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR EIGHT FARMS ON 
EXPERIMENTAL LINE IN 1926 



Items 


Average of 4 
livestock 
farms 


Average of 4 
grain farms 


Average of 
8 farms 


Total capital investment 


$52 452 


$100 988 


$76 720 


Land valuation 


42 919 


87 969 


65 444 


Total receipts (net increase) 


5 712 


9 121 


7 417 


Receipts from feed and grain 


3 180 


8 282 


5 731 


Total expense (net decrease) 


1 886 


3 397 


2 641 


Receipts less expense 


3 826 


5 725 


4 775 


Labor of operator and unpaid family 
Net return on investment 


894 
2 932 


1 306 
4 418 


1 100 
3 675 


Rate earned 


5.6% 


4.4% 


4.8% 



Except for investment in land, the eight active farms had a total 
average investment that was representative of farms in this section 
of the state (Table 1). The greater land valuation was due to the 
larger acreage of the farms and to their higher value per acre. The 
total investment per farm, including land, varied from $42,526 to 
$134,282. 

The land in these eight farms is practically all tillable. With a 
total average area per farm of 295 acres, 249 acres were in crops 
(Table 2). The area in corn ranged from 61 acres on the smallest 
farm to 226 acres on the largest, averaging 130 acres, or more than 
40 percent of the farmed area. Oats, wheat, soybeans, clover, and 
hay followed corn in order of importance from the standpoint of 
acreage. Soybeans have been replacing oats to some extent in this 
locality and have proved a more profitable crop for these fanners 
than oats because they have been produced and sold as seed. 



1999} 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



381 



TABLE 2. ACREAGES OF CROPS GROWN ON EIGHT COOPERATING FARMS, 1926 



Cooperator 


1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


7 


8 


10 


Average 
of all 




















farms 


Corn 


148 


80 


93 


84 


170 


175 


61 


226 


130 


Oats 


72 


14 


20 


8 


35 




21 


136 


38 


Wheat . 


30 


20 


30 


12 


30 


50 


10 


74 


32 


Timothy. 










3 






10 


2 


Clover 








3 




45 


18 




8 


Alfalfa .. 




4 




10 










2 


Soybean grain . 




17 


37 


35 


28 


85 


33 




29 


Soybean hay 




3 






12 


35 


7 


6 


8 


Total crop acres . . . 
Tillable pasture 


250 
20 


138 
16 


180 

50 


152 
45 


278 
30 


390 

70 


150 
3 


452 
36 


249 
34 


Non-tillable pasture. . . . 
















23 


3 


Farmstead, etc 


10 


6 


10 


6 


12 


20 


7 


4 


9 


Total acres in farm . 


280 


160 


240 


203 


320 


480 


160 


515 


295 



Both dairy and beef cattle were kept on these farms. The num- 
ber of cows varied from 2 to 12 per farm (Table 3). During the 
three years covered by the study the average number of cows per 
farm increased. The only representative livestock farm in the group, 

TABLE 3. KIND AND NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK ON EIGHT 
COOPERATING FARMS, 1926 1 



Cooperator 


1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


7 


8 


10 


Average 
per 




















farm 


Work horses 


9 


8 


12 


11 


14 


11 


9 


15 


11 


Other horses . 


1 




7 


1 


3 


15 






3 


Cows 


6 


2 


7 


12 


4 


8 


4 


8 


6 


Other cattle 




5 


17 


15 


13 


10 


7 


7 


9 


Sheep 






21 












3 


Hogs 


2 


4 


3 


30 


5 


9 


12 


12 


10 


Poultry 


105 


239 


12 


150 


163 


120 


169 


137 


137 



inventory taken April 1, 1926. 

in th.e sense that a large proportion of the crops grown on it were 
fed, was No. 4. Individual farms may be selected from the group 
that are fairly representative of farming in many other sections of 
the state. On one the receipts from hogs made up a large share of 
the income; on the other seven they ranged from $100 to $500 a 
farm. The number of poultry kept per farm varied from 12 to 239. 
An increased interest in this enterprise was shown during the period 
of the study. On two farms it supplied a considerable part of the 
income. 



382 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



o 
o 
O 



S > 

Bj<i 
P-H 

cr o 





co 

^ ^ <U '& -^ 


a ^ 




03 3 8 "^ 03 "d J2 


3 cs "d j2 


feJ5> 
a 


d - S, j "Sac 


"p a 


w3 p 1 


*^* CH j ^ (^ l2C} "^^ CH -^ 


43 


^ 


O- ^ ^ F " H O *^ S ^ OH ^ 


,0 










S ^^ ' S ^ N ' S ^^ ^ 


So fi.S -^ 




OH 


a 




a 


a 


g> 

g| 


4) 45 45 4) 45 03 4) 

d d d^ d _o d^'-'d 


o 

Q} 03 
03 CO *"-j ^g ^ 


F i **' 


ais feafea 458 a - > 45a4>s 


^H d 2 <p <U 




*~ *~*~ W ^ S w^aw^ 


M^ a w ^ 




^j ^"^ ^ 4d- ^ ^ ^ 


^ -3 -d" 


bg 


'JO ^ 'CO ^ 'CO ^ 'CO 'CO 'CO ^ '^ d 


'CO 3 *3 ' *00 


5 


T3 fc-c T3 ti 'd i-< t3 'o ^ r o ""^ SH 13 "^ 


^3 t-i "73 ^ T3 'T! 


'd 

efi **^ 

TO * 


do dodo & CL % CL, S G 2 

'el's '3*2 '^3 '3 co 'cS co 'S3 '3-S 

S-t< >it5f-t< t-|COfrHCOt,-ii tnOn 
Q~ ^N^^vP /^,4)^\O/~\3 /-\<D 
o HoPo PoOoHo POT 


do do d 2 
'3^ 'S'^3 '3 S* 

TO X TO "tT TO CO 

C - ~- H to 
P O O lo P 


^ co 
11 


( 1 

d d 4> d d jS d 
'bb 'So * 'So 'So ^ 'So 

d d d d d 
45 45 *T3 M 45 45 "t^ ^ 45 


45 45 45 

'So 'So 'So 

d d d 

45 4) 05 


O. |> 


CO CO d ^ CO CO d ^ CO 


CO CO CO 


^ 


03 c3 o345 o3 c3 o3S c3 






O O W"c3 O O W^ O 


o o d 




IH 
"^"3 "3 "3 SH --^ 


45 




C3 o ^ 45 -* "K w 




llf 


f^ f B ? ^g-^ M ^g' 

t OC3>'o> t o> -^SS *O > Sd 


o "c aT-g ts o 


H-d CO 


CO *d O CO O CO O O SH ^^ CO O .JH ^ 


GO O O SH O O f-l 




i (i icoC^coi-Hco HHn_iP-( CMco PHU-I 


1+3 ffi -^ fe ffi ^ 


4) 4) 3 

Pn.2 


CO CO CO >% CO r^ 
OO QOoO oOoO'CO oO^ 

CO^t COJn CO. CO.^, CO. ]^ !l CO . ^ 
1 1 1 O 1 ^T 1 1 CO W> 1 O C 
<N O5 CMi> CM rH CN 1-1 CM i-l I-H CO CM I-H o3 


co' CQ ^ to "^ 

K*ld >ido3 t>)d53 

il ii' is^ 

"CO tH "CO ^^ ~n tn'g 

CMOO CNOSCiCMOioS 


H * 






4) 




\<N 


111 


?- CM 00 "3 00 CM 1> 


1 1 


"cS 






B 






a 






O 








r^ v C^ CO ^^ *O CO 1 s " 


00 OS O 
1 1 



PH 



19S91 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



383 



The average return on the total investment for these eight farms 
was 4.8 percent in 1926 (Table 1), and for the other two years of 
the study a similar return was realized. This rate agrees closely with 
that of a much larger group of farms of the same general area and is 
nearly 2 percent more than the average farm in this section earned 
that year. 1 

Preliminary Survey of Equipment and Operation 

A complete inventory of all equipment and an analysis of farming 
operations were made for each cooperating farm before the electric 

TABLE 5. ENERGY USED FOR BELT WORK ON EIGHT COOPERATING FARMS AND 
PERCENTAGE OF ENERGY SUPPLIED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, 1926 1 



Operations requiring 
belt work 


Average 
energy per 
operation 


Part of 
total 
energy 


Energy provided by 
various sources 


Threshing 


hp. hrs. 
425 
70 

117 
276 
168 

34 

359 

217 
44 

82 

84 
579 


perct. 
17 .4 
2.9 

4.8 
11.2 
6.9 

1.4 

14.6 

8.8 
1.8 

3.3 

3.3 
23.6 


perct, 
i Steam engine.. . 20 .8 

[Gas tractor 22.8 

Gas engine, 
10 hp 1.4 


Shredding 


Filling silo 


Shelling corn 


Grinding feed 


Baling straw 


Pumping water 


Windmills 14.6 


Grinding feed and miscellaneous . . 
Pumping water 


[Electricity 40.8 


Cream separating 


Washing 


Operating water system 


100.0 


Milking 


Operating refrigerator. .... 


Total 


2 455 


100.0 



1 AU units of energy were converted into horsepower hours and averaged for the 
eight cooperating farms in order to obtain a total of the energy requirements for this 
type of work on a representative farm. 

power line was built. The finished survey gave a complete picture 
of each farm, showing living conditions, how the farm and house- 
hold work was done, and the economic status of the farm (Tables 
1, 4 and 6). Each job and the equipment available for it were 
listed, together with the methods used and the time required to do it. 



is shown by studies made by the Department of Farm Organization 
and Management. The rate earned is calculated after deducting from the 
total net income wages for the operator and his family equivalent to th^ose 9f 
hjred 



384 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



a 


00 

rH 


"^ * 10 co t> co co o 10 * 

^ C^ l"H rH rH rH CN rH 


CD D 


S 2 03 
CD O (H 


1926-27 


as 
^ OO CO b- OS CJ5 CO CD IN OO 

5< rH rH rH C^ CO rH 


a 
, o 

3 GO 


> l-T O 
V 


1925-26 2 


< 

fe I> rtl IO CO CO 00 OO OS 1> 

OOCOrH rH-^ (N 00 rH 
IN "^ C^l rH rH ^* ^^ C^ ^O CO 


tppliances 
sformer wa 


CO flj GO 
M Q ffl 

03 g K 

PH o'^ 


00 
<N 

rH 


g CO lO CO CO IO CO CO CO lO 


c 

,,-u 
S 




*? 


CO i-H O rH (M O CO IO * 

. t^ o >o o oo co co 01 co 
g a> I-H as co o oo co os CM 


"0,2 


1^ 


O> 
i 1 


"^ IO CO t> 00 I> IO IO (M I-H 
rH rH rH rH i 1 


| 

C o 


So 

gi 





Tti CO O CO 00 O CO b- 00 
. (N CO * CN IO CO CO IO O 

g OO (N CO OOCOrH CO rH 


if 


03 C3 


OS 
rH 


"** IO Tt< l> l> CO 00 CO TH O 

rH I 1 rH rH 


s 


* . 


CO 
I 


00 CO (N (M 00 (N CO b- IO 

. C5COt^-COCOCO< 1 TH OS 
g Oi (N O5 00 l> CO * CO CO 


03 -4^ 

?l 




(N 

OS 
rH 


^ IO * rH OO O O Tj< OO H3 

I 1 rH rH (N <N i 1 rH rH 


f. fa 


1 

o 


CO 


g rH (N (M I-l i-l 

ft 


So 

HIM 


CD * 


5 o 

T *= 
-) CO 


S^rHO>OCOrHOSCJ3CO CN1 
^ rH ^^ CO ^O rH CO s ! 


(JQ Q} 

Q^ bJO 
M > 


f-t 


02 


_fl 
O 


"? OO OO CO Tt< O3 O rH Tt< 1> 

53 oo o co * oo oi co 02 r> 


'3 " 

3 


g_. 

SH 


a 

a, 

3 


S OOOOCOOOOOIM O5 
S~ IO CO 00 O !> Oi IO >O rfl 

y<NrHrHrH(NCOl I"* CM 


tQ 

OP Oi 


CD 

.^H O 

co v 


3 


Qi CD CD CD CO CD CD CD *O IO 


III 


Number 
in 


i 

a 

i 


?- CN 00 O 00 I> "* rH CO 

rH 


lo'5 

03 -^ 








log 


(H 








O 








i 






0)T3" 


B, 




2 


^ CO 








ti 'oo ^ 


o 






H CD 






rH 


*2 o 



19X9} 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



385 



Stationary gas engines and tractors were quite generally used 
in the operations listed in Table 5. Three of the farms had small 
unit electric plants before the electric service was obtained from 
the power line, the power from these unit plants being used mainly 
for lights and for very small motors. 

On the basis of this preliminary survey the possibilities of sub- 
stituting electric for other types of power in use on the farms were 
studied and plans made to use it wherever it seemed practicable. 

CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL LINE 

Since good electric service was essential to the conduct of the in- 
vestigation, the extension line carrying the power to these test farms 
was itself in no way an experiment. No expense was spared in its 
building to insure first-class service. High-class standard construction 




Fid. 2. THE EXPERIMENTAL LINE, SHOWING 

CONSTRUCTION AT A CORNER 

A well-built line, of standard construction, free from tree inter- 
ference and carefully maintained is essential for continuous service. 

was used. Thirty-foot Western red cedar poles, with 7-inch top and 
%-inch Pentrex treated, were used and were spaced at a maximum of 
175 feet. The line was 6600-volt, 3-phase, 3-wire, 60-cycle, and built 
of No. 4 bare hard-drawn copper, and the minimum spacing between 
wires was 14% inches. It was no doubt better than most rural lines. 
The question of character of line has been involved only to a 
limited extent in the problem of furnishing electric service to farmers. 
It is physically possible to build almost any type or voltage of line. 
The cheaper constructions, however, are not necessarily the cheap- 
est for the farmers in the long run, for depreciation and mainte- 
nance may more than offset the advantage gained with a better stand- 
ard of line, 



386 



BULLJOTN No. 332 



[June, 



The construction used for the experimental line was of consider- 
ably higher standard than necessary. In fact the standards that have 
been generally used for rural service have been higher than neces- 
sary. This fact has been recognized by the Illinois Commerce Com- 
mission, which in its general order No. 115 reduced the standards 
it had previously set for rural lines. One public service company 
serving a large number of farmers in Illinois has filed with the Com- 
mission specifications which take full advantage of the new order. 
With the lower height of pole that is permitted and a longer span 

construction, the cost of extend- 
ing rural lines that have fair 
right-of-way conditions is in the 
neighborhood of a thousand dol- 
lars a mile exclusive of trans- 
formers. With an average of 
three customers to a mile, trans- 
former installation costs would 
bring the average mile cost up to 
$1,350. 

Location and Size of Transformer 

The location of the transform- 
er is of importance in relation to 
the distribution of power about 
the farm. On the experimental 
line each transformer was placed 
reasonably close to the house and 
the outbuildings in order to have 
it as near the center of load distri- 
bution as possible. A master meter 
and a switch box were located on 
the transformer pole. This posi- 
tion is of decided advantage when 
service is rendered thru one meter. 

The meter should be readily accessible from the ground and yet high 
enough so that children cannot reach it. 

From 3- to 10-K.V.A. transformers were originally installed on 
the experimental line. Three- and 5-K.V.A. transformers were later 
substituted for the larger ones. The best size to use depends upon 
the total connected load and upon the maximum amount of current 
required at any one time. The smallest size which will meet the 
requirements of the customer results in the greatest economy in opera- 
tion, for the smaller the transformer, the smaller is the core loss. 

Table 6 shows the total connected load and the sizes of the 
transformers that were ultimately used on the cooperating farms, 




FIG. 3. TOTALIZING METER AND 
SWITCHBOX IN BOX ON TRANS- 
FORMER POLE 

It is desirable to place the master 
switch and totalizing meter on the 
transformer pole for convenience, 
economy, and safety in providing ade- 
quate service leads to the different 
buildings. 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 387 

Wiring the Farmstead and Buildings 

An adequate and convenient wiring system, with plenty of out- 
lets properly placed for connecting electrical devices, is the first 
step toward the satisfactory use of electricity on the farm. Too 
much emphasis cannot be placed on the importance of this point. 
To get switches and outlets most conveniently placed for service in 
the outbuildings as well as in the house require careful thought. 

Wiring for both 110- and 220-volt service was provided at each 
farm. Power outlets for 220 volts, for connecting a portable 5-horse- 
power motor and other smaller motors by plugging in, were pro- 
vided at a number of convenient points about each farmstead. One 
or more yard lights controlled from at least two points were in- 
stalled. In each house floor and wall outlets were provided for con- 
necting special lamps, vacuum sweepers, and other appliances. The 
wiring plans for the ten farms were developed from floor plans of 
the residences and ground plans of the farmstead. 

Adequate provision for future connections was made. Too often 
consideration of future needs is neglected and when a range or a motor 
of several horsepower capacity is purchased, it is found that the en- 
trance wires or service drops and the wires leading to the meter are 
too small and larger ones must be put in at considerable expense before 
the new equipment can be used. The total expense of wiring a house 
may be greatly reduced by making the original wiring complete and 
of adequate size to take care of future needs. The saving made by 
using smaller than No. 6 wire for entrance wires is hardly justified. 
Care should also be observed to see that the method of wiring is 
standard practice and that it meets the requirements of the National 
Board of Fire Underwriters. 

Cost of Wiring 

The cost of wiring a farmstead depends largely upon local con- 
ditions since labor is a big item. To economize by using inexperi- 
enced wiremen may prove costly in the end. On the experimental 
line an experienced wireman was obtained who allowed the farmers 
to help in their spare time in doing certain phases of the work. 

The cost of wiring these test farms, including the cost of hired 
labor, ranged from $94.66 for a seven-room house, corncrib, poultry 
house, and one other small building, to $198.74 for a fourteen-room 
house, barn, corncrib, garage, milk house, and one or two other 
small buildings. The fixtures cost $79.10 and $191.56 respectively 
for these same houses. The average cost per farm for wiring was 
$130 and for fixtures $134, a total of $264 per farm with the houses 
averaging nine rooms. 

The cost per outlet, including wall sockets, outlets for fixtures, 
etc., ranged from $2.90 to $4.60 and averaged $3.50. A lighting cluster 
was considered as one outlet. The total number of outlets per farm 



388 



BULLETIN No. 332 




1929] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 389 

ranged from 21 to 49, averaging 37. For outbuildings the average 
number was 10. 

The wiring cost of power outlets was not included in the above, 
since the experimental work required more outlets than would ordi- 
narily be employed and a record of their cost would therefore be 
of little practical value. 

ENERGY CONSUMPTION ON EACH FARM 

The energy consumption on each farm for a period of 32 consecu- 
tive months is shown in Figs. 5 and 6, and the total for the ten test 
farms for 48 months is shown in Fig. 7. 

During the first twelve months all energy except that used on the 
lighting circuit was furnished the cooperators without charge. The 
equipment was installed on a loan basis. The installation of some of 
the equipment used during the first year was purely for experimental 
purposes, it being recognized that it was likely to be impractical. 
Naturally the use of it during these twelve months made energy con- 
sumption high. 

With the beginning of the second twelve-month period the farmers 
were charged the regular rate for all energy used, and all the equip- 
ment that had been installed on the loan basis was either removed 
or purchased. A decrease in energy consumption resulted, but the 
decrease was due more largely to the removal of equipment than to 
a reduction in the use of the equipment that was kept. 

From the time the above adjustment was made to the end of the 
test, the energy consumption increased on nearly all farms. The in- 
crease was especially marked during the spring months of 1928, 
when a number of incubators and brooders were bought by the fann- 
ers. In every case this equipment was purchased on the initiative of 
the cooperators, no effort or inducement being offered by those in 
charge of the investigation to lead them to increase their electrical 
equipment. 

The number of persons in the families of the various coopera- 
tors, the size of the farm, the crop acres, the source of income, the 
connected load, and the average monthly energy consumption for 
each of the cooperating farms are indicated hi Table 6. The effect 
of the increase in the connected load in 1927-28 on Farms 2, 4, and 
7 is reflected in the increased energy consumption during that year. 

The summary of data in Table 6 does not show any relation 
between the size or type of farm or the principal source of income 
and the amount of electric energy used. Cooperator 2, farming 160 
acres, with 40 percent of his income from livestock, used an average 
of 251 kilowatt hours each month in 1927-28 and Cooperator 8, also 
farming 160 acres, with 39 percent of his income from livestock, 
used an average of 58 kilowatt hours a month in 1927-28. 



390 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 




1929] 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



391 




II 



Q 

OQ -^ 
II 



O 

O 



a .9 

< d 



fl 

H O 

s 



392 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 




o *> 



< S -S 

s * 

o 3 d 

fc > 



- . 
o P. b 

to i; 
^ 01 ^ 

a J 

H *> ft 

2 fl-^ 
w .3 a 



' 

0) 



a 



03 >-. 

~o3 



a xi 
o 73 

oo 



"H S 



fl *' 

I! 

0) 



19991 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



393 



It will be noted that the four smaller farms received 35 to 56 per- 
cent of their income from livestock, while the four larger farms re- 
ceived 6 to 11 percent of their income from livestock. 

Kinds and Amounts for Different Types of Work 

The energy used for all operations on the cooperating farms was 
derived from horses, gasoline, steam power, windmills, and electricity 
(Table 7) . All the farms used horses, 7 used steam power and wind- 
mills, and 4 used gasoline engines, tractors, or trucks. Horses and 
tractors were complementary sources of energy for the drawbar work. 

TABLE 7. ENERGY SUPPLIED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES FOR DRAWBAR AND 
BELT WORK ON EIGHT COOPERATING FARMS, 1925-26 



Source of energy 


Average 
time used 
per farm 


Conversion 
unit 


Total 
converted 
units 


Percentage 
of total 
units 


Horse 


hrs. 
8 799 


1 


hp. hrs. 
8 799 


perct. 
67.3 


Motor truck (8 hp.) 


90.5 


8 


724 


5.5 


Tractor, drawbar 1 


184.5 


6 53 


1 204 


9.2 


Tractor, belt (30 hp.) 


17.3 


30 


519 


4.0 


Gas engine (10 hp.) 


3.4 


10 


34 


.3 


Steam engine (25 hp.) 

Windmill (1 hp ) 


19.8 
359 


25 
1 


495 
359 


3.8 
2.7 


Electricity 


701.4 s 


1.34 


940 


7.2 












Total.. 






13 074 


100.0 



Conversion unit used for drawbar work was determined on the basis of accom- 
plishment. 2 Electricity expressed in kilowatt hours. 

On these farms, as on all farms, two types of power were needed 
that for drawbar and that for belt work. The drawbar work made 
up by far the larger energy requirement, averaging 82 percent of 
the total energy used (Table 8). 

TABLE 8. ENERGY USED IN DRAWBAR AND BELT WORK ON EIGHT COOPERATING 
FARMS AND ON A GRAIN AND LIVESTOCK FARM, 1925-26 



Type of power 


Horsepower hours 1 


Percentage of total 


Average 
of 8 
farms 


Grain 
farm 
280 
acres 


Live- 
stock 
farm 
203 
acres 


Average 
of 8 
farms 


Grain 
farm 
280 
acres 


Live- 
stock 
farm 
203 
acres 


Drawbar 


10 729 
2 343 


8 530 
1 562 


7 845 
2 285 


82 
18 


85 
15 

100 


77 
23 


Belt 


Total 


13 072 


10 092 


10 130 


100 


100 



x The various units of power consumed in both types of work were converted into 
horsepower hours in order to obtain comparable totals for them. 



394 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



I 
N 



N 
D 



Energy required 


Average 
per month 


E 

-" O51OO O!O5 TtiTj<OTfcOi-iCOt^ [CO 
CO C^ CO i~H O O ^O CO T-* C^ CO 

I-H t-H I<N 


J For operations now performed but not with electric power. Commercial. 





I-H O -i *< CD OTt*OCOO5O>iO(M (N 
-C t^ O CO t^ O iO iO O rt< O5 (M CO IM CO 
* CO CO i-l CO (M CO CO -< CO 00 

^ i 1 i-H C^ 


49 

'3 

3 






1 








fe ^ <S 








. 









-e 




50^ 3^-i.o c ^ 3 d 






J 














OT ^ S ^o *o c^ T ic ic 

(N CO ^ I-H (M r^a 








- 1 ^H (M (N IN r-l CO 


Description of use 


a : 


':-% ': 






Lights for all farm buildings a 
minor household equipment 
Household use only 
1 oows . . 


Grinding feed, elevating grain, a 
miscellaneous work 




. . . . o . . . : : 




,0^ 


11 : 25 :- 

gvi o JH oi X1 

H C J"S c9 ^^ Q 
"""* . ^ ^^ *^ O * TO 

Q O tJQ. O *^* CQ CO 52 ^ ^ 

^j OOOJ>.IOOCOO5O5 
<3 -* CO O2 i> I> I-H IO (N CO 




Present uses 
Lights and household equipment 

"Rpfriorprn.t,nr . 


c 

1 
'1 



!ii 


5 horsepower portable motor 

Tnfnl 


















. ."g d^. 

! I IslfUl 1 

< f2Sn X2"O M A^fe H 
~ Sf ^ Orr-l ^3 5 0> 

Si |2^cJ^ 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



395 







iverage 
sr month 


i ..,.. B 


1 






pi 








3 
o 


(2 


ID 

t ^< lO ^D '^ CO 
^ OO W CO^O O5 

1 


T-i 

s 




E 

1 


1 


i i 

* iiijl 










8.9 if fa 

p, .:* qj Q) 

2^S^? 




BLE 9. (Concluded) 




i 

| 
g 


cr> oo 

^^ 
-O fl fl 

t- :i o o 
_^2S 

^ p3 %t !d 

6C '3^-2 

.S .9-9 




< 
H 




i 


.2 1 a 

'O 3 d fl 
S O <x> o> 










l-> O O O 

o co 10 >o 

fe <N t-n-H 










5 g 










S "i >> 










u 42.^ 
> ^3 

** -2 


"c 

"c 

1 








~2 g >^ I 

^| o +5-S E- 


3 

3 2 
i O 








<5 





BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 





a 

H 
E 

a 



Q O 
H H 

CM <) 

O C5 
H W 
W 

1 

H" 

i 



S 

5 
h 





-u 




















1 


i 


<cooc 
j i 


) C 

c 


ic i ' *o ^* cc 




^ 

T 


g 






3 


i 


c^ 


i i- 


i 




CO 




& 



















S3 

6 


csur 

"""a! 


)O5G 
< 00 - 


1 


rj< O O O rf O OC 
IO O O5 IN 00 00 (M 


oo coc 


y 

-r 


CO 

o 


1 


t-l 


g 


) CS 




CO rH CO Tj* C 






** 


3 


n< 




1 


Ie 


<M 






* 


cr 

B 


















bC 












1" 
























I 










ft 


'$ 1 






H 


.-a 









1 

o . . --3 


> fl 03 K 

43 n s c 








^ 








O w 3 3 3 3 jj 













Jj 






-Jj ^i- - t- t- g 


I.sSS 
















fcn &i fl^ 

S.'-i (M ^ CO CO a 
CO O 1-1 (N <N O 


jj "* t-> t* 

o S-* 
















r-<(M IM "* 


i-H ICO! 










T3 ' 


















g^ a 


1 






4^4^ 










Sbl'c 


bO 






(3 d 
o o 












> bd 
















73-2^ 


13 






e 






i 


i 


111 


i 




: 


hi tn 






n 




42.2 


i 




. . ; . -^ g >> 


ti C (3 






l 
- t i 

'i 
i 


i 
i 

Si, 

* 

i 


all farm 
household 
f rookine-. 


rs-s 

T3-2 
O M 

65 T3 

73 e 
S * 




i '. ' ~g43 ^> 

: c g : o ^ S $ 

H Q) O ' *O *O *O 

O t/3 CQ 73 SO ^-H 


g 1 Mtt 
| 11 


1 




1 


i 


u u c 

00+; 

c 
3*1 

bfl 

a 1 


2t3 

IJ 

11 

ow 




gj'o IH 3 3 3 3 


i 11 

5 

fe 1 1 T- 




























49 


















(3 


















5 


















s 


tn 
















a 


1 
















'3 



















cr 
a> 


a 

V 


















42 






(U ^ 










43 


-2 
















1 


* 




^ 


43 S C 




: 






resent uses 
Lights and hou 

Ran ere. . . 


5-horsepower p 
Deeo-well oum 


1 

3 

o 

,fr 


^ -2 

O 03 * 

2 .2 fc o 
11 hill 11 

fl!* 3 ! s,h 
lil'sll ? 

^ i (_ 35 O43 W 

HMUH P4 


bb S 

" 5 -88 

" fe *" 
59 ** o 

~- >'*- 1 
" o ^ ^- 

la ll 


-i- 

^ 
> 


3 

a 

c 

O 






OH 






b 


a. 







19291 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



Steam power, windmills, and electricity were used for the belt 
work, which represented only 18 percent of the total work done on 
the farm. In its present stage of application, electricity may be 
seriously considered only for stationary or belt work in addition 
to its lighting and heating uses, which are not considered under 
this heading. 

There is more belt work to be done on a livestock or dairy farm 
than on a grain farm. On a representative livestock farm belt work 
made up 23 percent of the total power demand, as compared to 15 



K.W. 



I I Pofonffaf Load 

"E13 D*pw*rrpump 

E 3 front Bolar 
t^ Lnsilaij* Cutter 
Threshing 




Aver 



Nov. Dec. Jan. Fb Mar- Apr. Ma<{ Juna Julu Aua Sept'- Oct. 
J9Z6I I9Z7 

FIG. 8. PRESENT, UNDEVELOPED, AND POTENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION 

ON A 203-AcRE DAIRY FARM 

This farm, owned by Cooperator 4, is typical of the grain and dairy 
farms in this section. Several items of equipment listed under "undevel- 
oped," including a range, incubator, and brooder, were purchased and put 
into use in 1928. 

percent on a representative grain farm. However, on the eight farms 
studied, the belt-power requirements on the four large farms were 
considerably higher than those of the livestock farms of smaller acre- 
age. This was due to the total power requirements on these farms 
being greater. 

Studies were made to learn what operations required belt power 
and how many horsepower hours of energy were used for each opera- 
tion (Table 5). The largest amounts of energy were used for re- 
frigeration, threshing, pumping water, grinding feed, and shelling corn. 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



Other belt operations, such as milking, washing, and cream separat- 
ing, while consuming small amounts of energy, require it regularly 
thruout the year; hence a convenient source of energy is of particular 
advantage for them. 

Just because electricity is a very convenient source of power on 
livestock, dairy, and poultry farms, where a large share of the labor 
of the farm is absorbed about the farmstead, it is not to be expected 



CU Potantfa/ /ooef 



Kw. 

Hrs. 




Nov. Dc. Jon. fab. Mar Apr. Mau June Julu Auq. ,3pt. Oct. Av. 

I9Z6 I9Z7 

FIG. 9. ESTIMATED POSSIBLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION ON 

A 320-AcRE GRAIN FARM 

This farm, owned by Cooperator 5, was typical of the grain farms of 
the area. Eighty-nine percent of the income was from grain. The total 
possible use of electric power is not quite so great as on the smaller dairy 
farm. 



that every farmer who gets electric service should change to those 
types of farming. On the contrary, it is essential that where elec- 
tricity is available its use be adapted to the system of farming prac- 
ticed in the section, and to the needs of the particular farm. 

Potential Electrical Load for Two Representative Farms 

As stated previously, the unit cost of supplying the farm with 
electricity depends upon the amount of use that is made of it. In 
Tables 9 and 10 and Figs. 8 and 9 an attempt is therefore made to 
show what maximum use could be made of electric energy on the 
farm of Cooperator 4, a representative dairy farm in the grain-pro- 
ducing area of Illinois, and on the farm of Cooperator 5, a repre- 
sentative grain farm, if used for all the operations for which it has 
proved practical. 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 399 

The power requirements are divided into three groups; first, the 
load for which electricity was being used and for which the farmer was 
paying; second, the undeveloped load, or the amount of energy that 
would be required for those operations that were being performed by 
some other source of energy; and third, the potential load, or the re- 
quirement for those operations and practices not performed on the farm 
but which might profitably be performed and for which electricity 
has proved practical. A record of all the operations performed over 
a period of one year was used as the basis for calculating the total 
amount of electricity that would be required for the different uses 
described. The energy requirements for the different operations were 
calculated by using data obtained at this and other experiment 
stations. 

Besides showing that both types of farms were using considerable 
electric power, these charts indicate, contrary to the usual belief, 
that there is practically as large a potential use for electricity on 
Illinois grain farms as on dairy farms. The load per mile of line, 
however, would be larger in a dairy area in Illinois than in a grain 
area because the average dairy farm is smaller than the average 
grain farm and there would be more of them to a given area. 

Power and Labor Saved on Test Farms 

To adopt electricity successfully as a source of power for farm 
operations, either the labor used should be made more productive 
or the new power must cost less than the power formerly used. The 
fact that labor and power make up from 50 to 70 percent of the 
total operating cost involved in crop production suggests the im- 
portance of any plan for their more effective use. 

Thru the cooperation of the Department of Farm Organization 
and Management detailed labor and financial records were kept on 
eight of the ten cooperating farms from the beginning to the end of 
the study. These records were compared with those of another group 
of six farms which did not have service from a central power station. 
These six farms were chosen because they were the only farms in 
the area on which records similar to those on the cooperating farms 
were kept during the entire three years. 

It is interesting to note that approximately 50 percent of the 
farm labor (Table 11) was performed on or about the farmstead 
in caring for livestock, repairing machinery, improving buildings, and 
grinding and hauling feeds for stock. A much smaller share of the 
total labor on a farm is used in the field in the production of crops 
and in hauling them to market than is often supposed. With farms 
having more livestock to the acre, the percentage of labor spent 
around the farmstead would be even larger. 

While the records of the eight cooperating farms indicate a de- 
crease each year in the proportion of time spent in performing tasks 



400 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



about the farmstead, the larger part of the reduction seems to have 
been due to such general conditions as failure to make any major 
repairs on buildings during this period, for a similar decrease oc- 
curred on the six farms not having central power service. It seems 
probable, however, that part of the decrease between the first and 
second years resulted from the use of electricity in farm operations 
the second year. In the case of certain individual operations it is 
clear that electricity would materially lessen the man labor required. 
This is particularly true of the milking operation, and also of feed 
grinding when an electric motor replaces a tractor. 

TABLE 11. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FARM LABOR THAT WAS PERFORMED ON OR 

ABOUT THE FARMSTEAD ON EIGHT COOPERATING FARMS AND AVERAGE 

FOR Six OTHER FARMS 



Cooperator 


1925 


1926 


1927 


1. . 


perct. 
51 


perct. 
47 


perct. 
49 


2 


52 


50 


53 


3 


61 


53 


51 


4 


66 


60 


60 


5 


53 


51 


49 


7 


53 


45 


46 


8 


58 


56 


45 


10 


52 


43 


36 


Average of 8 cooperating farms. . . . 
Average of 6 other farms 


56 
49 


50 

47 


48 
45 



While electricity thus tended to reduce the labor required about 
the farmstead, in some instances it caused an increase by adding to 
the number of activities undertaken. Seed-corn germinators were 
operated where formerly this type of testing was not done on the 
farm. Poultry production was increased, and feed was ground where 
formerly it was bought. 

Because of these two counteracting influences, the effect of the use 
of electricity is not fully indicated by the changes in the percentage 
figures. The fact that 50 percent of the labor of the farm is spent 
about the farmstead is perhaps of more significance, for it suggests 
the possibility of using electricity for light and power to make the 
labor of the farm worker more effective. 

The actual application of electric power is discussed under the 
.various uses which were studied. 



SCOPE OF EQUIPMENT STUDIES 

All facts concerning energy consumption by equipment, with the 
exception of a few tests made in the University laboratories and 
on the University farm, were obtained under actual farm operating 



19S9] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 401 

conditions on the ten cooperating farms. A number of pieces of 
equipment were installed on each farm and the use, value, and en- 
ergy requirement of each piece determined in comparison with other 
equipment. Under this plan it was possible to build up a reasonably 
large load on each farm, resulting in a lower charge per unit of 
energy used. 

Thru the cooperation of manufacturers, the following electrically 
operated equipment was used on the ten farms served by the test 
line: 

10 refrigerators 6 ironers 

10 vacuum cleaners 6 water heaters 

10 cream separators 2 milkers 

9 portable utility 5-hp. motors 2 dishwashers 

9 washers 1 kitchen aid mixer 

8 grain elevators 1 paint spray machine 

8 ranges 1 buttermaker 

8 feed grinders 1 15-hp. motor and substation 

7 water systems Other miscellaneous equipment 

The distribution of this equipment by farms is shown in Figs. 5 and 6. 

Tests were made also of poultry house lighting, seed germinating, 
silo filling, and other miscellaneous uses. 

In many cases changing to electricity for the performance of 
various operations did not require much additional expense for equip- 
ment. To several washing machines and cream separators already 
in use, small electric motors were attached. The equipment cost of 
electrically operated water systems, incubators, brooders, and the 
seed-corn germinator were no more than the cost of similar equip- 
ment operated by other sources of energy. An electric range costs 
little, if any, more than a good coal range. 

In the following pages, in two groups, are given the results of 
these equipment studies. The first group covers household uses of 
electricity and the second the uses of electricity in farm production. 

In addition to securing data on the energy requirements of indi- 
vidual operations, a primary object in testing out various uses of 
electricity under practical conditions on a group of farms was to 
determine as accurately as possible the total practical use that could 
be made of electricity during each month of the year. The results 
obtained were largely due to the interest and cooperation of the in- 
dividual farmers on the line. 



HOUSEHOLD USES OF ELECTRICITY 

Improved living conditions on the farm are generally recognized 
as one of the essentials of modern agricultural advancement. In 
making better living nossible, electricity is playing an important part. 
The problem of modernizing the farm home and reducing the irksome- 



402 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



ness of many chores becomes much easier of solution with electric 
power available. 

Two groups of equipment are considered in this study of the 
adaptability of electric power to the farm home. In the first group 
is the larger equipment the water supply system, including plumbing 
and sewage disposal, and the lighting equipment. 1 In the second 




10 



DAISY GARDEN 
AND POULTRV 

Before lectrifj'cation 
HH After -Electrification 

FIG. 10. A COMPARISON OF TOTAL TIME SPENT BY FIVE HOME- 
MAKERS ON SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER 

ELECTRIFICATION 

The time saved in doing the work of the household with 
electrical equipment was devoted to productive work in the 
dairy and garden. 

group are the movable labor-saving devices and conveniences such 
as washing machines, ironers, vacuum cleaners, ranges, food mixers, 
refrigerators, and other appliances of this kind. The principal part 
of this study on household uses of electricity was directed to the 
equipment in this second group. 

'Altho electricity has been tried out for house heating, it has not proved 
satisfactory for this purpose under Illinois conditions, and was not included in 
this study. 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 403 

Effect of Electrification on Housewife's Time 

The first step in studying the use of electrical equipment in the 
farm home was to determine just how the women on these test farms 
used their time and the effect which the installation of electrical 
equipment had upon their expenditure of time. A week's record of 
the time devoted to household tasks, to recreation, and to sleep- 
ing by the women on five of the test farms was therefore taken 
before electrification and another week's record a year later. A sum- 
mary of the data collected is given in Table 12. 

While no definite conclusions can be drawn from results cover- 
ing so brief a period and kept by so few women, certain tendencies 
may be noted. These are shown in graphical form in Fig. 10. 

The vacuum cleaner saved from 1 to 5 hours weekly in caring 
for the house. Better laundry equipment saved from 1 to 4 hours 
a week. There was a tendency for less time to be spent in recrea- 
tion, but this may have been due to the fact that the women were 
not so tired and therefore did not feel the need of so much rest as 
formerly. 

More time was spent on the personal toilet after electrification 
than before. This difference may have been due to the investigational 
work, which brought increased personal contact, but as few visits 
as possible were made by the investigators during the time this in- 
formation was collected. 

Less time was spent in sleeping. This may have been due to 
the fact that better lights made it possible to read and do other 
things in the evenings that require a good light. It is possible that 
the women were less fatigued and so did not feel the need of the ad- 
ditional sleep. 

The time spent on dairying and in the garden was 1 to 10 hours 
more a week after electrification than before. This would indicate 
that a large part of the time saved by using electrical appliances 
in the home was used in income-producing work. 

Pumping Water for Household Use 

A water system in the farm home not only is a convenience for 
the housewife but renders service to every member of the family. 
It ranks high among the items of equipment essential to a modern 
home. The first cost, however, rather than the operating cost has 
been found in tests to be the deciding factor when the farmer con- 
siders the purchase of a water system. 

Data on energy consumption for the pumping of water for house- 
hold use were obtained at four homes where water was being pumped 
from shallow wells by automatically operated, hydropneumatic sys- 
tems. Water meters and electrical kilowatt-hour meters were installed 



404 



BULLETIN No. 332 







00 


CD 
CN 


O T< CO Ol O O IM O 1-1 -iCi-H -1C 




Q 




1 


05 


co i i I ! tc 








i 

o 




CN 


1C -OO 1C ICO OiO OC OiC -O 
i-H T)H -J< (M * O (M (M CO * CO <M -CO 




1 


3 


O 


05 
1 1 


IM CO tic I I I 




1 


'5j 
O 


to 


CO 


O 1C 1C 1C 1C O OOiC O O O -O 

1-1 Ttl Tfl 1-H i-H O O CO ^H (M 1C IM -1C 


m 


- 

CD 

M 


a 


1 


O5 
i 1 


(MCOIC (MCO COi-HO5 :<MOO '. 1C '. '. '. 


t>n 


CO 

H 


e wen 


s. 

o 
o 





1C O 1C 1C O O O O 1C O -OO 1C 1C 
CO i I CO ^ CO CO <M i I O 1C C -H i 1 O 


I 




U 

. TJ 


O 


O5 
i 1 


i* OO * CO H * IM <N >C '. O5 IrfKM '. '. 
CO CO . CO . . 


1 


g w 


1 




co 


O -iCOiC -O>CC -OO -1C -1C 


EP 


Ss 

. 00 
00 -5 


3 




o 

"03 


IM 

O5 
i 1 


IN: : : 1-1 : :ic i"" 1 : 


& 


1*5 





1 

o 


>o 

<N 


1C CO ^5 1C CO 1C O ^C 1C 1C 1C 1C CO 
<N -iCiCi-HIM -IMCOOlMOiC -CO * 


s 


2* 





o 


O5 
i 1 


co . ic 05 0*1 . ^^ ^^ c^ i^ co . co . ~H . 

C<l CN i I 1C 


c 
o 

a 


*E 


1 


1C 


co 

(M 


1C 1C 1C 1C -OiOO -OO -O -OiC 
<N -OCOOiC 10 <N I-H -COiM -i-i -CO 1C 


1 


K<? 
W 

y, ^ 


!C 

'3 
9 

a 


o 


05 


IN I-H ; iM 1 " 1 : ico : 


-1 




1 


o 




(M 


1C 1C O O 1C 1C O O O 1C O C -1C 


73 


g g 





U 


O5 
i 1 


1C Ii-HCNCOCD '. COi-l ! T-I i 1 1C !l- I 
CO . i 1 i I .i-H . CO . 


n 


El 


B 


<N 


CO 


O -OiOOiO -OiOiO -OO -1C 



iS 


| 




1 


O5 

T-l 


00 I i-H COCO :i>-*CO ICNGO IiC '. '. '. 
(M . CO .1C . . . 


1 




'i 


D 

O 


1C 
<M 


1C -OOiCO -kCiCO -O -O 

i-H -COOi-H-* -i-HO(N -O -^H . 


co 

CN 
O5 
i-H 


|H 

pq 


3 


O 


O5 
i 1 


co * ' >c '. ' '. 


1O 














fc 


_ 








i-H 













1- 


02 













W 


.2 








+3 


9 


S 








g 


H 


3 


4. 


1 






| 






I 







CN 


g 


f 


> 


g..oo. 




3 




c 


1 




s 


1 




f- 


1 






u 

t-t 



1929} 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



405 



o 

5 
O 

a 

p 

o 



(_, 










[*^8^ 


g CM CO O T}< IO ^H 
(- ^ CJi CO ^* *O I-H CM 


OrH 


8 


CM 


1*8 2* a 


g -i CM CO CM t-H <-H 


< 1 rH 


CO 


>-H 


3 


* 








bC >> 92 43 


* rH CM CO t^CM 


fe8 





CM 

j-H 


| ||| 


g CM CM -. ^Tt< 


^HCM 


1 1 


CO 


1 S-| 


5^ CM ^ O CO CO lO 


QOO 
CO CM 


o 

CO 


o 

"5 


aj rr3 o> 


i. _ _ IO IO i<tt 


iO kO 


IO 


OS 


| Q a 


CO CM 








3 ? 


ot-- o i~- o o 


10 10 


00 





G 33 

1 S S 


C3 CO OO ^O CM O CO 
Os O i-H COCO OO iO 


r i 
oo t^ 


o 

CO 


8 

CM 




i-H ^-i coco 


1 1 i 




<N 




cOt^ COt- COt^ 


CO t^ 


^ 


^ 


4 


CM CM CM CM CM CM 


CM CM 


CM 


CM 


83 


II II II 

10 cO *O cO iO co 


1 1 

10 CO 





1 


>< 


CM CM CM CM CM CM 


8? 





S 




















CO 


2 


to >O CM 


o 


IO 


CM 


g 


. co co co 


CO 


co 


co 


OQ 


o 1 1 




1 


i 


CO 


*O CO ^O CM 


o 


o 


CO 











o 

1 I 


"S OH 


c 








I" 8 3 


fl 00 O 

rH CM 


CM 


i-H 


CM 


83 O. 










o 


O 










c 








bO - 










.S "^ 











"H* " 


^ ^K i>x ijx 


ix 


^5x 


its. 


M S 










s >> 








CO 


"s.sl 


00 CM <* 


H 


CM 


> 


& J 












bO i 

.s y- .s 


M 


bO 


bO 


a 


W '^ o 


o 

03 


^ 


5 

03 


8,8 


1 f i 




f 


I 


>> Q, 


3 -S 3 


3 


i-2 


3 


H 


3 bO 3 


3 


b 


3 




O G O 


O 


_G 







P S P 


p 




p 


U 





















B 










JO, 






bfi 


bfl 








03 


o3 








hi 










<u 


U 




CO C3i C5 


c> 

r-l 




> 



a 



" 



2 



-S 

- A 

~ OH 

_ n> 
^ cu 

3 - 
O S 

t< O 
. t- 

S." 

1.2 

11 

a, 03 



C coo 

Jo.S 



III 

tc be M 
^.S.G 

^ A'E 



406 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



and readings of all meters were recorded each month during the 
test, which lasted for two years. The results are shown in Table 13. 
Three double-acting water pumps operated under farm condi- 
tions required an average of 1.42 kilowatt hours to 1,000 gallons of 
water pumped (Cooperators 3, 9, and 10). The greater energy con- 
sumption of the single-acting pump (Cooperator 6) during the first 
year was due largely to a slight air leak in the suction pipe. The 
average lift was about 10 feet. The range in pressure was from 

TABLE 14. WATER CONSUMPTION AT NINE FARM HOMES EQUIPPED 
WITH MODERN PLUMBING 



Farms 


Period during which 
measurements 
were taken 


Number 
of 
people 


Volume 
per person 
per day 


A 


6- 5-25 




gals. 


B 


9- 4-25 
6-11-25 


3 


47.5 


C 


7-10-25 
5- 4-26 


3 


17.0 


D 


8- 3-26 
3- 1-26 


4 


21.1 


E 


3- 1-27 
6-15-25 


4 


30.4 


F 


12-21-25 
8- 1-25 


7 


15.0 


G 1 


6- 4-26 
6-19-25 


8 


10.0 


H 1 


6-19-26 
6-19-25 


5 


38.0 


Ji 


6-19-26 
6-19-25 


5 


45.8 




4- 3-26 


4 


29.0 



, H, 
were not charged 



and I were supplied with University water pressure and the tenants 
for water used. 



10 to 35 pounds. The monthly energy consumption for pumping 
water for household use ranged from .5 to 7.0 kilowatt hours, aver- 
aging 2.4. kilowatt hours for all pumps under test. 

Considerable water was used in the cooperating farm homes from 
sources other than the water systems under test, and this made it 
impossible to secure a record of the total amount used in the home. 
The data from another study of nine farm homes equipped with such 
plumbing fixtures as kitchen sink, bathtub, lavatory, toilet, and 
laundry facilities (Table 14) show wide differences in the amounts 



19291 ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 407 

of water used per person per day. The lowest amount was 10 gallons 
and the highest 47.5 gallons. Part of this difference is to be accounted 
for by differences in equipment and part to habits of the individual 
families. 

Laboratory tests were made on electrically driven, single-acting 
reciprocating, double-acting reciprocating, and rotary pumps under 
various pressures. The data secured indicate that the actual effi- 
ciency of such plants is low. However, the cost of operating them 
is slight, and they are so convenient that the question of efficiency 
is not to be given very much consideration when compared with 
other methods of pumping. From the study of such plants, however, 
it is evident that many could be operated with greater economy than 
at present. Fifteen to 25 percent more power is required when the 
range of working pressures is set for 20 to 50 pounds than when 
set for 10 to 20 pounds, which under practically all conditions is 
satisfactory. 

The efficiency of the particular rotary pump tested was higher 
than the reciprocating pumps at low pressures but was practically 
zero at 50 pounds pressure. The laboratory tests showed two double- 
acting reciprocating pumps more efficient and one less efficient at 
low pressures than the single-acting reciprocating pump. The tests 
under farm conditions showed that the double-acting reciprocating 
pumps were more efficient. 

Some of the advantages of an electrically driven water system 
and complete plumbing that were recognized by the users were the 
following: 

1. Labor and time are saved by having water where it is needed. 

2. Complete bathroom fixtures are possible. 

3. A constant supply of water for livestock and poultry is as- 
sured. 

4. The protection to farm buildings from fire is increased. The 
water pressure and the water supply may not be adequate for ex- 
tinguishing a well-established fire, but if the fire is discovered in 
time, the pressure system certainly would have an advantage over 
the bucket method. 

5. The health of the family is protected by the better disposal 
of sewage. 

Water Heating 

Tests were made to determine the efficiency of two types of 
heaters the inexpensive open type connected to an ordinary hot- 
water tank, and the more expensive thermos-bottle type. 

Five water heaters of the open, or exposed, type, with a capacity 
of 3,960 watts each, were connected to uninsulated hot- water tanks 
in five farm homes. No charge was made for the energy and the 
water was used more freely on some farms than others, but no record 



408 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



of the amount or the temperature of the water was kept. The only 
value of the data is to show the monthly energy consumption. During 
the month of August on one farm where there was a family of 
eleven, one of these heaters used 475 kilowatt hours of energy. During 
the month of July, at another farm home, where there were eight 
persons in the family, a similar water heater used 171 kilowatt hours. 
This type of heater was very wasteful in the use of electricity. 

A 15-gallon thermos-bottle type of water heater was used in one 
farm home. This heater was equipped with a 2-hour time switch, 
automatic temperature switch, and a 3000-watt element in the base 
of the tank which was well insulated. The energy consumed by this 
heater was 293.6 kilowatt hours per 1,000 gallons heated. The water 
was generally heated for two hours in the morning, reaching 150 
Fahrenheit. It remained warm enough for most purposes thruout 
the day. On wash days, when considerably more water was used, 
the heater was turned on again at noon. 

TABLE 15. ESTIMATE OF AMOUNTS OF HOT WATER USED BY DIFFERENT-SIZED 
FAMILIES WITH AND WITHOUT WATER UNDER PRESSURE 



No pressure system 
(based on 69 reports) 


Pressure system 
(based on 39 reports) 


Number in family 


Gallons per 
person daily 


Number in family 


Gallons per 
person daily 


2 


6.62 
3.95 
2.5 to 3. 10 
4.28 


2 
4 
7 or over 
4.46 


8.80 
6.37 
3.75 to 4. 28 
5.92 


4 


7 or over 


Average 4.1. . . . 



Information on the amount of hot water used in farm homes was 
secured from a group of home advisers. This data is shown in 
Table 15. It is evident that the actual amount of hot water needed 
will depend somewhat on the habits of the individual family as well 
as on the convenience of the equipment. On the basis of the data 
in this table a family of four persons, with a pressure water system 
in use, would need 764.4 gallons of hot water during thirty days. 
From the results of experiments with the insulated thermos-bottle 
type of tank it is calculated that 225 kilowatt hours would be re- 
quired to heat this amount of water sufficiently for household use. 

Because of the convenience of a hot water supply, a low energy 
charge would make water heating by electricity practical in reason- 
ably small quantities. While the number of heating units available 
per kilowatt hour limits the use of electricity for water heating, 
there are possibilities for practical use of electricity for heating water 



1929] 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



409 



in a well-insulated tank when the current is connected with a time 
switch so that the heater will be in operation after midnight, when the 
electrical load is very slight and the energy used may be purchased 
at a lower rate. 

Tests of Washing Machines 

In washing and ironing, as in many other household operations, 
the matter of equipment is only one of a number of important 
factors. The water supply, the method of heating the water, and the 
facilities for drying the clothes all affect the ease with which launder- 
ing is done. 




FIG. 11. WASHING AND IRONING MACHINES IN HOME 
OF COOPERATOR 10 

Electric power was applied to the double-tub washer by 
means of a motor attachment. By the use of these machines 
the time required to do the jobs of washing and ironing was 
cut about in half. 



Only a limited number of tests were made to determine the effort 
expended in doing the household washing before electricity was avail- 
able. Eight of the ten farms used gas engines, one used a hand- 
operated machine, and one washed without a machine. To wash 
100 pounds of clothes without a machine required 11.2 hours; with 
a hand-operated machine 10 hours were used; and with the gas 
engine for power 7.5 hours were used. The distance walked when 
using hand methods was 10.2 miles ; with the hand-operated machine, 
it was 7.1 miles; and with the machine operated by a gas engine, 
it was (3.4 miles, all per 100 pounds of clothes, 



410 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

After electricity was available, records were kept on 6 washers 
of the oscillating type and 1 of the double-tub dolly type. Table 16 
gives a summary of one year's washing records secured on the farms. 
To wash 100 pounds of clothes required an average of 1.52 kilowatt 
hours of electric energy and 8.7 hours of labor. The distance walked 
by the farm women was 4.47 miles to 100 pounds of clothes. A total 
of 275 weekly washings were included in the test and the number 
of pounds of clothes washed was 10,211, or an average of 37 pounds 
a week. 

There was considerable difference in the time required, the distance 
walked, and the amount of electricity used by the different women. 
The operator completing the washing in the least time required only 
5.9 hours of labor, walked 3.37 miles, and used 1.11 kilowatt hours of 
electricity to wash 100 pounds of clothes ; the one taking the most time 
required 11.6 hours of labor, walked 5.12 miles, and used 2.22 kilowatt' 
hours of electric energy. The factors having most influence on the 
efficiency of the operation were the type of washer and the location 
and arrangement of the equipment. 

While detailed records such as the above were kept for only 
one year, a record of the energy consumed by the washing machines 
was continued thruout the experiment. In 1927 the amount of energy 
consumed monthly ranged from 1.25 kilowatt hours in a family of 
two to 3.16 kilowatt hours in a family of seven, averaging 2.37 kilo- 
watt hours a month for the eight cooperators. The energy consump- 
tion per person per month varied from .23 kilowatt hour in a family 
of eleven to .62 kilowatt hour in a family of two, averaging .36 kilo- 
watt hour for all eight families. 

Some idea of the value of the time spent by these farm women 
in doing their washing can be determined by comparing their costs 
with what the service of a city laundry would have cost them. In 
one farm family where a total of 1,858 pounds of clothes (dry weight) 
were washed on 50 wash days over a period of a year, 28.1 kilowatt 
hours of energy were used and 136.4 hours of labor were required. 
Twenty gallons of hot water and 1% bars of soap were used each 
week to do the washing. The expenses were: 

Cost of energy, 281 kw. hrs. at 10 cents $ 2.81 

87% bars of soap at 6% cents 5.47 

16% gals, of kerosene for heating water, at 12 cents 2.00 

15 percent on $175 for interest and depreciation on equipment 26.25 

Depreciation and interest on investment in wash tubs, boilers, 

buckets, and washboard (assumed) 3.00 

Bluing, starch, washing powder (assumed) 12.00 



Total $51.53 

The charge by the city laundry for 1,858 pounds of washing re- 
turned rough dry, at 10 cents a pound, would be $185.80. Laundry 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 411 

that is finished rough dry has the flat pieces ironed. The differ- 
ence between the cost of doing the laundry at the farm and that at 
the city laundry, $134.27, may be considered the value of the 136.4 
hours of labor used in doing the work at home. This is only a little 
less than $1.00 an hour. The saving in time required to take the 
laundry to town and have it returned would approximate the time 
required to iron the flat pieces. 

If we assume the city laundry would call for and deliver a wet 
wash ready to be ironed at a cost 'of 5 cents a pound, then the com- 
parison would show a saving of $41.38. In this case the housewife 
would earn only 31 cents an hour for her labor in doing the job of 
washing; however, there are relatively few farms located so they can 
get free delivery service. 

Where a gas engine was used as a source of power for washing, 
a little less labor time was required than where an electric motor 
was used. This was probably due to three different factors; first, the 
types of washing machine used most of the farm women, in chang- 
ing from the dolly to the oscillator type of machine, thought the 
latter was slower; second, a man usually started the gas engine and 
saw that it ran properly, but his time was not counted; and third, 
there was greater haste, in order to get thru with the job before 
the engine stopped. 

The electric motor for driving a washing machine is practical, 
economical, and entirely satisfactory. The energy used is very slight 
and the cost per week is a very small item. The cleanliness, ease 
of control, and the ever-ready power of an electric motor are charac- 
teristics which make it an important factor in the solution of this 
difficult household problem. 

Tests of Electric Ironers 

Farm Tests. Studies of electric ironers were made both in the 
homes of the cooperating farmers and in the laboratory. The value 
of the 26-inch ironer as a time saver, on the basis of actual farm 
tests, is suggested by the records summarized in Table 17. The num- 
ber of hours of labor required to iron 100 pounds of clothes with 
the old-fashioned sad irons was 14.89; the number of hours required 
with an electric iron, 10.27, and with the 26-inch ironer, 7.58. 

Three of the six ironing machines that were used experimentally 
the first year were purchased by three of the farmers. The average 
energy used each month by these ironers was practically the same 
as the average for all six the previous year. 

The ironers proved of special value in homes where there were 
large families. In some instances, where most of the ironing consisted 
of flat pieces, the time saved over hand ironing was about one-half. 



412 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 







ISSSSSSg 8 








J rt(NtN ^^^^ ,H 



z 




1 J| 


. OO CN O5 CO t^ 00 OJ "* 
gCOt>COOOcDOOCO CN 




o 
< 

fc-< 




T3 b> *= 

a <& 
-1 


' <U5 ^ 051CC0 ' ^ co 


s 

o 

S; 




a g a, 

8n P 


eo'Ol>COCOC35O>>-i t> 


M 
Z 

O 




^ a.5 


Jsor^r^r^a oo 


hH 
O 


3 

a 


o . aj 

s'S 


05 Ot>CNl>t^ -<N l^ 

^i-Ht>-i IO5CO '"-H ^ 


SB 


F-t 

8 


p 


^COCOC"5CO * Tt< 



i i 

u 


8 

d 


blUH 


^O^^^COOO OS 


g 

o 


g 

o 


5|p,J 


f2 t- CO U3 CO CO CO CO CD 


W 


o 
O 
SB 
I 

rg 


a; <p 


iO O 1-1 OO OO O OO 
CN CN CN i-t i-i CN 


z 



1 I 

1 


g 


.+J co 


i 1 CO CO OO CO rH CD 

eoOOOCOiCOCNO 


a 

H 

^ 


J 


& w 




O 


W 

oQ 




<N*>O^H<00* 


g 




8 


O CD CO 


gCNl-HCOCNr-li ICO 



1 i 





b 


CNOCNO3OOOS 


g 


.CHINE 


^M * 


g COt>O500OOOO 
"* i 1 i I i 1 i 1 


H 

u 
P 
9 


2 


o a> 


OS rH 1> * CO CN CN 


H 


i 


|1 
3'J 


^ 1-1 T}< co co t^ oo i> 

CN i-H i 1 i 1 


K 
H 


QD 


II -2 


oo COCN CN -CO 
CO"5 id CN O -CO 


H 

u 


1 
co 

i-H 


11*1 


g iH rH i-H CN CN -^-1 


M 
H 
U 
H 


W 


M J 
4? W) 

11 


00 CO O5 O CN CN 00 
^ CN * O CN CO -^ 


3 

H 

1 1 

s a 

^ 




I s ! 


t^. CN 00 1C I> * i-l 

i I 


"co H 

5 1 
^ 

I " 

H 








<U tl 




i. 




\Z < 






a) 


& H 







|p 








B 








i-! CN CO TjJ |> GO C5 % 
i-H ^S 







IH O 
<O CO 


* :^ 


s 


g 



i 


kg 

s 


1 :ci 
1 : 


O 
CD 


>, 


jj 


-co 


00 


<o 

i 


s 


"^ ' M 


OS 




_fi 


1 :<N 


CN 




.s 


1 - M 


CN 


CO 

o> 
^3 

-M 
JD 


|| 


"s -50 


s 


co 


w ' 3 


^ 


1-1 


G 








a 






oo 


o 


o a5 


. OO CN 

CO 


U3 


V 

CL, 


3' 






a) . 

!l 

^ i 


^ bO 

3 H G 

? & 1 


810 
-, .* 

i-H rH 


o 

CN 


"i 

^ 
i 


f| 


iO I 
co' CM O 

-SJ O t^ 
CN 


i-H 

00 

00 

CO 


^ 
^1 


j co 
3 2 


IO 
"3CN 


CN 


Q '' 


if'S'S 
J w O 


S CO 00 
S3 COCO 


CO 








CO 


bo i 


3 >, 






1! 


| J J 


CN 


l> 






E 

'o 

d 
g 


1 


? machine, 
j-inch roll 4 






^ 


2 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THB FARM 413 

Some objections were made to the short-roll machines because 
of the necessity of folding tablecloths and other wide pieces. How- 
ever, the short-roll machine wastes less heat than the long-roll. 

Some difficulty was experienced at first in operating the ironing 
machines, but the longer they were used the more proficient the 
women became. One machine broke a large number of buttons on 
the clothes owing to light padding on the roll. 

The results of this study indicates that where a large quan- 
tity of clothes and household linen is ironed each week, sufficient time 
and labor are saved to justify the use of an ironing machine. While 
more electric energy is required to iron the same quantity of clothes 
with the ironing machine than with the electric hand iron, the value 
of the time and effort saved is in favor of the ironing machine. 

Laboratory Tests. Thru the cooperation of the Home Economics 
Department, tests were made in the laboratory to determine the effect 
of moisture content upon the time required for ironing certain articles 
of clothing and to study the efficiency of different lengths of roll 
from the standpoint of time and electrical energy consumed. 

A machine with a 32-inch roll, preheated 20 minutes, was used 
in the tests to determine the effect of amount of moisture on rate 
of ironing. Two centrifugal driers were used. One of these was 
part of a washing machine. It was noted that the special centrifugal 
drier having a high cylinder speed reduced the moisture content more 
in a given period of time than the drier which is an attachment of a 
washer. 

The time required for ironing involves two factors the time 
for manipulation and the time required to remove the water. The 
results of these tests indicate that in ironing flat pieces, where the 
time needed for manipulation is reduced to a minimum, the ironing 
time is proportional to the percentage of moisture present. 

Three ironing machines of two different makes having different 
lengths of roll were used in making the efficiency tests. All three 
machines differed in the design of the open end, wattage per square 
inch of shoe surface, metal in shoe, speed of roll, and the control 
switch or lever that operated the roll. These variable factors made 
it impossible to make an exact determination of the effect of the 
length of the roll on its efficiency. The procedure was as follows: 
the clothes were dried to approximately the same moisture content 
by means of a centrifugal drier and were weighed just before being 
ironed and immediately after they were ironed. The dry weight of 
the clothes was determined by drying them in an oven. The machines 
were preheated to approximately the same temperature before the 
tests were made, and the same pieces of clothes were run thru each 
machine, making it necessary to operate one ironer at a time. 

The number of grams of water driven off per watt hour by each 
machine for the different kinds of clothes ironed is shown in Fig. 



414 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



12. The long-roll machine removed less water per watt hour than 
either of the two short-roll machines. This was due to the fact 
that the operator could not keep the long-roll machine full from 




Fia. 12. EFFICIENCY OF DIFFERENT LENGTHS OF IRONERS IN REMOVING WATER 

FROM ARTICLES OF CLOTHING 

The bars indicate the number of grams of water removed for each watt hour 
of energy used. The results of the tests show that except for large, flat pieces, 
the short-roll machines are more efficient users of electricity than the long-roll 
machines. 



end to end. The average of the four tests showed little difference 
between the long-roll machine and the short-roll machine in re- 
moving water where large flat pieces such as sheets and tablecloths 
were ironed. The machine with the shortest roll consumed less energy 



1929] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 415 

per unit of work done than the other machines. As compared with 
ironing by hand, the long-roll machine saved about 35 percent more 
time than the short-roll machine on large flat pieces, but it did not 
save any time over the short-roll machine where small or difficult 
pieces were ironed. 

Further tests, where all the mechanical features of the machines 
are kept as nearly constant as possible, should be made before defi- 
nite conclusions are drawn relative to the effect of the length of the 
roll on energy consumption and rate of ironing. From results ob- 
tained, however, it is evident that for the average operator the short- 
roll machine is more efficient than the long-roll machine in conserv- 
ing energy. The quality of work done was about the same except 
in the case of the large flat pieces, with which the long roll did the 
better job. 

Cooking by Electricity 

Farm Tests. One year's record of the energy consumed in the 
operation of electric ranges in farm homes is given in Table 18. 

In a few of these homes coal ranges were used part of the time 
during the winter months, and in all of them ranges were given 
limited use for heating water for such purposes as dish washing. 
From May to September the electric ranges were used to do all the 
cooking. 

The most striking difference in the energy consumption during 
the summer months will be noticed in the record of Cooperator 2. 
During June, July, and August this cooperator did not heat any 
water on her electric range. The results show that over 50 percent 
of the energy used previously was used to heat water. Cooperator 8 
did not heat much water on her electric range, which also shows a 
low energy consumption for a family of four. Considerable fruit can- 
ning was done in the summer on practically all the electric ranges. 

The average energy consumption per person per month for eight 
cooperators using electric ranges during the year 1925-26 was 32.5 
kilowatt hours. The energy consumption per person per month ranged 
from 23.7 kilowatt hours in a family of 11 to 66.8 kilowatt hours in 
a family of 2, and the average monthly energy consumption ranged 
from 117 kilowatt hours in a family of 2 to 319 kilowatt hours in a 
family having an average of 7.5 persons. 

The maximum average energy consumption occurred during Sep- 
tember and the minimum during March. The average amount of 
energy used monthly by each range during the different seasons was: 
summer months, 215 kilowatt hours; fall months, 212 kilowatt hours; 
spring months, 168 kilowatt hours; and winter months, 168 kilowatt 
hours. It is interesting to note that monthly energy consumption 
was practically the same during the summer and fall months and the 
same during the winter and spring months. 



416 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



I 

o 
o 
O 

b 

M 
O 

w 

o 



O 

W 



3 
& 

CO 

5 

N 

O 

H 
Z 

W 



00 

i-H 

s 

5 



1 



o 
fc 



^ ^ 
!2! ^ 



1O 00 (N 00 * O * |> 
rfS 

g T}H CO (N IO (N CO CO IM CO 



cp 1C CO CO CO l> O5 rH 00 Tf< 



CO 1-1 <N T-I CO (M 



Tt< i-H i-H (N i-l IN CO (N 



OOINCDOOIXN 
OOCOOOOlM^ 
CO (N r-l <N r-l ( 



i I i-H CO CO t-- O O5 CO (N 

C^l C^ i-H O3 i I rH rH 



00 CO O rH O CO CO <N 00 
CNrHCO i-H rH 



<N COCO (M <N (N 



poqopppoqp <N 
oocot>i>oot>cot~ 



s *!f 


^; oo os I-H 10 





3 r^ 


- CO<N<N r-l 


O 


I % 


fO t^ O i-H T)H 

^ CO CO>O U5 


(N 
<9Q 


W o> 






>H 


i-l (M 


iH 


-t-2 


(Ml^OOO 


c: 






ro 


O 


(N i-H 


i i 


1 


oo i^os co 
t>ocoo 

IM (N 


CO 
I 1 


M 


cOlO OT)H 


^ 


3 


t^" ^H t^ f"*> 


f-^. 




<N CO 


^ 


> 


COCOO01> 
00 CO OOO 





1 ^ 


(N^HIN 


T 1 


a 2 


t^OlNrH 


^1 


. y 


co * 05 o 




3 - 


<N C^ 


^ 


O K~ 






"^ 
(2< 


cocor^ oo 

i-H i-H 


^H 
r^ 










OOt^lM CO 


'N 


3 O-, 




CO 


O <J 






,-3 






"<1 * 


COOCOO 

I> Tt< CO 1-1 


CO 


* 


11 




'O -Q 

M 0) 


I^OO<N C^l 

rH 


o 


S3 


(M COO5(N 
CO CO C<1 O 
i 1 


CO 


6 
o 

P 


00 CO I-H t^ 
00 O CO O3 


1 1 
00 





OO rH (M OO 

t^ 10 co co 

i ( i-H 


8 


g> 




>n 




oo' 00 O O O 


05 


^j ^5 fl 


g . . . . 




18 2 




CO 


h 

^ % 




14 


i-si 


WI> IN i-H 


10 


3 a3 






55 " 






be 













1 






Q, 






a 

fcx 


O 

O 


I 1 


t. 



19291 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



417 



The energy consumption of the range owned by Cooperator 2 
continued to be low in 1926-27 (Table 19) ; the average energy con- 
sumption per person per month for all four cooperators during this 
year was only 20 kilowatt hours as compared with 32.5 kilowatt 
hours the previous year. A coal range was used part of the time 
by each of these four cooperators during late fall, winter, and early 
spring. 

The use of a pressure cooker to prepare an entire meal at one 
time was an important factor in reducing the energy consumption of 
the electric ranges. Records kept on cooking such combinations as 
mashed potatoes, cabbage, and chile con came; or custard, scalloped 




FIG. 13. ELECTRIC RANGE IN HOME OF COOPERATOR 5 
The average energy consumption per person per 
month for four cooperators was 32.5 kilowatt hours 
in 1925-26 and 20 kilowatt hours in 1926-27. Pressure 
cookers were an important factor in reducing the 
energy consumption of these ranges. 

potatoes, baked beans, and Swiss steak, show that from 50 to 60 
percent of the energy is saved over the ordinary method of cooking 
on the grids. Two of the cooperators had economy cookers, which 
saved energy as well as time. 

Energy is saved also by an orderly and well-planned menu, cook- 
ing breakfast foods in the oven on the evening's stored heat, and by 
turning the switch to either medium or low in cooking when the water 
has started to boil. The placing of pans of water in the oven, or on 
top of the hot grids after the meal has been cooked aids in solving 
the hot water problem for washing dishes. 

The cost of cooking meals on an electric range as compared with 
other methods is somewhat higher, but such advantages as tempera- 



418 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

ture control, automatic control, cleanliness, etc., will make the differ- 
ence in cost seem worth while to many. It should be remembered that 
electricity was furnished free during the first year's tests and that the 
cooperators lacked experience in operating electric ranges. This no 
doubt accounts partly for the difference between the amounts of 
energy used during the two years. 

Laboratory Tests. A test to determine the most economical 
method of cooking certain meals on the electric range, from the stand- 
point of energy consumption, was made in the Home Economics 
laboratory of the University of Illinois. 

Some preliminary studies were made in farm homes to deter- 
mine typical farm menus and to try out different combinations. Two 
menus were chosen as being representative. The selection was guided 
by cooking records kept by the farm women cooperating on this 
project, and the amounts of food prepared were determined on the 
advice of a nutrition specialist. The first menu selected was beef, 
potatoes, corn, cabbage, and custard. This menu was chosen as one 
which lent itself well to several methods of cooking. The second 
menu selected was pork, navy beans, potatoes, tomatoes, apple pie, and 
biscuits. This was chosen because it did not lend itself well to 
different methods of cooking. When the meal is cooked in the oven, 
the biscuits must be baked at the end of the cooking period and re- 
quire a very high temperature, which makes it impossible to do much 
of the cooking on stored heat; and when the meal is cooked on top 
of the stove, it is necessary to heat the oven in addition in order 
to bake the pie and biscuits. 

The quantities of food chosen were based on the needs of a farm 
family of six and were as follows: 

Menu No. 1 

3 pounds of beef 

1 No. 2 can of corn 

2^2 pounds of potatoes (after paring) 

1% pounds of cabbage 

1 quart of milk for custard 

Menu No. 2 

3 pounds of pork 

1 No. 2 can of tomatoes 

2% pounds of potatoes (after paring) 

2% pounds of apples for pie (unpared) 

3 cups of flour for biscuits 

1 pound of dry navy beans 

Three series of tests were made. In one the meals were cooked 
in the oven ; in another, the meals were cooked on the platform heat- 
ers; in a third, the meals were cooked in a pressure cooker. Two 
different ranges were used and as nearly as possible the same utensils 
were used on both ranges. The beef dinners consistently required 



1989] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 419 

less energy to cook than the pork dinners. This raises the question as 
to what food combinations prove the most economical when the cost of 
cooking is considered. 

With one range there was more energy consumed when the pork 
dinner was cooked on the surface heaters than when it was cooked 
in the oven. When the beans were parboiled in the oven, the amount 
of energy used was less than when the whole dinner was cooked on 
the oven top. With the other range less energy was used when the 
pork dinner was cooked on the surface heaters than when cooked in 
the oyen. This was true also of the beef dinners on both ranges. 

The amount of energy required to cook the beef dinner with 
the pressure cooker was only slightly less than with platform heaters, 
but it was considerably less than with the oven. The pressure cooker 
did not seem to affect greatly the amount of energy used to cook 
the pork dinner. 

Food Mixing 

Records were kept to determine the energy used in mixing food in 
a machine known as the kitchen aid. This piece of equipment is 
operated by a %o~h rse P wer motor and has the following attach- 
ments: wire loop whip, beater, pastry knife, bread hook, mixing bowl, 
food chopper set, special triple action three-quart ice cream freezer, 
oil dropper for mayonnaise, ice or hot water jacket, pouring chute, 
slicer and ice chipper, colander and sieve set, and roller for colander 
and sieve. 

The energy consumed by the kitchen aid was very slight. In a 
family of 11 only 1.2 kilowatt hours per month were used, and in a 
family of 8 only about .5 kilowatt hour. The machine was found 
to be very helpful during canning season. Cooked fruits to be made 
into butters or jams could be put thru the colander when hot, thus 
saving time. During threshing, corn husking, and silo filling seasons 
it was very useful for such operations as slicing or mashing potatoes, 
mixing or beating eggs, whipping cream, grinding meats, etc. 

Making Coffee With Percolator 

A test was made by the Home Economics department to determine 
the amount of electricity used in making coffee with the electric perco- 
lator and the ordinary percolator when heated on an electric range. 

Six cups of coffee were made in an electric percolator using 57 
grams (about 8 level tablespoonfuls) of coffee and heating it to the 
boiling point. One hundred sixty-five watt hours of current were 
used. The same amount of coffee was made in an ordinary aluminum 
percolator set on the large platform heater of an electric range. The 
switch was turned to low position so that only the heating coil in the 
center was hot. The energy consumption with the ordinary perco- 
lator was 415 watt hours. 



420 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



The ordinary percolator used was not the most efficient type and 
the data, therefore, cannot be considered conclusive, but they indicate 
that it may be economy to use an individual electric unit for some 
purposes rather than to cook on the platform heaters on the range. 

Electric Refrigeration 

Some means of keeping food cool in order to keep it palatable 
and prevent waste is an important consideration in every home. 

An electric refrigerator was installed in the home of each of the 
ten cooperating farmers in order to study its use and determine its 
energy consumption and the effect of different conditions on energy 




FIG. 14. ELECTRIC REFRIGERATOR IN DINING ROOM OF 
COOPERATOR 4 

From April to September inclusive the 10 refrigerators on 
test required an average of 56.1 kilowatt hours a month. The 
dining room is not an ideal location for an electric refrigerator; 
an unheated pantry is better. 

consumption. Five of the refrigerators were better insulated than 
the others. Some were located in cool rooms and some in warm 
rooms. All the boxes had a capacity of about 6 cubic feet, with the 
exception of one and its capacity was 12 cubic feet. Under farm con- 
ditions the refrigerator would not be used to a great extent during the 
winter months. 

The average monthly energy consumption of these refrigerators 
over a period of a year ranged from 22.6 kilowatt hours in Decem- 
ber to 80.3 kilowatt hours in August, a monthly average of 41.9 



ELECTRIC POTTBR FOR THE FARM 



421 



TABLE 20. ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC REFRIGERATORS ON TEN COOPERATING FARMS, 1925-26 1 

(Expressed in kilowatt hours) 


1 




00CiCCO -* 1C 05 CO 'N -H CO 




^he high energy consumption of the refrigerators in the homes of cooperators 2, 5, and 8 during July and August may be accounted 
for by the fact that considerable ice, sherbet, etc., was frozen. No. 1 disconnected his machine in December. Switch on No. 2 was stuck 
during February and March, but that was not the fault of the machine. During November, December, and January his machine 
stayed cool, but the energy record seems to show that the room must have been about the same temperature as the box. Service was 
needed once on No. 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10. The capacity of each of the boxes was about 6 cubic feet, except that of No. 4, which had a ca- 
pacity of 12 cubic feet. 2 W = warm room, C = cool room. 


33&S 8S35?g 





* 


^ <^H rt< lO CO CO CO CO GO ^ CO I s - 


(N 


O 


O 


2SJSS 88899*88 


00 


00 


O 


^H i 1 


CD 


- 





C^ C 1 ^ C^ C*^ C^ OJ CO ^H CO CO *O iO 


O 

oo 

CO 


CO 


* 


SSS& 8S3SSSKS 



1C 


c 





i 1 14 




CO 








SS5SS SSSSS38KK 




>c 


CO 





C^ C"^ ^"4 fH ^^ ^H T-H i-H ^^ "^ t^ t^ 


CO 

co 

CO 


<N 


o 


1C ^H i ) Tt< CO 00 GO 


co 


- 





6SS- SSS8SSSS 


CO 


Cooperator 


Location of refrigerator 2 




Total annual 
















l^ to 


1 ^ 
Oi 05 


SS5 


2 1,^43 ^C 1 . 

Jill lHd^. : ,l 

o -^> ^ C^ ?* n J2 fc-i !L^ {-t ^ bfl 
S<y O O) g jj * Cu * 3 

OjO^Q i-s fe S <J S 1-5 i-S <J 



422 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[Jwne, 





g 








o^-2 








2 & 


(N CO COO 






li 

<I S c 


"*: iO CO 00 -^ 






o 






K^ 


o 






(M 








CO 








(N 








05 


^ 






i^ 


bfi 






a? 


(-, fl 

S.2^ 


>> fc. > 

- 




5 

fe 
O 

g 


[inimum e 
consumpt 
one mon 


l-H i-H (N ^ 





<J 


">: 






H 


f^t 







O 




J3 flja 






H 


.2 ~S 


>i >i t^> t*. 




P 

O 

O 


if! 

IP 


S 3333 
1 1 1 

- i-KNCO^H 
CO CO t^ O 




a 


03 









^ 






H 








H 








W 











>j fl 






S 


be, o j_. 






fe 








H 
tf 


c ^ 


coco oo 

^ <M 00 10 CO 
^ TH (N CO 1C 




3 


"o ^^ 


* 




1 


H8 






N 






00 


o 


o> >, 




^ 


^ 


- a 




"S 


2 


a.a s 


1 1 


o 

S 


| 


"- 




D 


00 






^ 


J5 






O 


o 








O 






-d 
a) 


fc 






as 









^_J 


1 








T 






"S 


. 


t-t 




o 


1 1 


O 




S 


H 


OJ 




2JJ 


" 


O, 








H 


o 
U 




3" 






i-H 


o 



19291 ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 423 

kilowatt hours for the year, which is determined by dividing the 
total yearly consumption by 120, the number of customer months 
(Table 20). The average energy consumption during the summer 
months was 69.8 kilowatt hours, during the spring months, 38.5 kilo- 
watt hours; fall months, 33.2 kilowatt hours; and winter months, 
26.0 kilowatt hours. 

From April to September inclusive the ten refrigerators required 
an average of 56.1 kilowatt hours per month. The highest monthly 
energy consumption recorded on any one refrigerator under test was 
131 kilowatt hours. In practically every case where the energy per 
month was above 90 kilowatt hours, it was due either to expansion 
or to discharge valve trouble. 

Four of the ten refrigerators were purchased in November, 1926, 
by the farmers on the test line. The energy consumption of these 
refrigerators from that time to November, 1927, is shown in Table 
21. One of the refrigerators was operated for six months, another 
for six and one-half months, and the other two for the full year. 
The energy used monthly averaged 33 kilowatt hours the second year 
as compared to 41.9 kilowatt hours the first year. The lower monthly 
consumption the second year is due to the fact that two of the co- 
operators made use of their refrigerators during summer months only 
and the average was determined on the basis of the total customer 
months (48), as in the first case. The maximum . kilowatt hours of 
energy used occurred in July the second year and in August the first 
year. 

Effect of Location of Refrigerator on Energy Used. The location 
of the refrigerator is a big factor in determining the energy consumed. 
That less energy is used by a refrigerator in a cool room than one in 
a warm room is indicated by tests made during the winter months on 
several similar boxes of the same make, some located in warm rooms 
and the others in cool rooms. 

The difference in the energy consumption of two similar boxes 
during the warm months is in a large measure due to the difference 
in the individual users. Some users make a larger quantity of frozen 
desserts and ice than others, and some users are more careful than 
others in not putting in hot or warm foods and in covering liquid 
foods. Undoubtedly these factors determine the energy required to 
maintain the box at a certain temperature. 

That the inside box temperature varied directly with the room 
temperature was shown by temperature readings on the inside of two 
refrigerators. One type of refrigerator showed a greater inside tem- 
perature variation corresponding with the room temperature varia- 
tions than the other type. This is illustrated in Fig. 15. No doubt 
this variation was partly due to poorer insulation, to type of door 
lining, and to type of door. 



424 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



The variation in the energy consumption per week could not 
be traced to any one factor. The number of times the doors were 
opened did not seem to bear any relation to the energy consump- 
tion of the box. The relation of outside humidity, inside humidity, 
and defrosting to energy consumption could not be determined under 
the uncontrolled conditions existing on the farms. 

Advantages of Electric Refrigerators. The outstanding advant- 
ages of electric refrigerators in the farm home are that they save 
the time ordinarily required in going after ice for an ice box and 
they make the preparation of frozen desserts, ices, and cool drinks 




Fia. 15. CHART SHOWING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE TEMPERATURES 

OP A REFRIGERATOR 

A well-insulated refrigerator box is essential for economy in operation and 
for the maintenance of a uniform inside temperature. 

an easy matter. They also eliminate many of the inconveniences con- 
nected with the use of the ordinary ice box. A disadvantage that 
might be mentioned is that mechanical attention is needed at in- 
tervals just as with any other machine, and parts wear out which 
call for repairs. Most of the refrigerator dealers, however, realize this 
and provide a service man to take care of these problems. 

The domestic refrigerators under test did not fully meet the re- 
quirements of the farm homes in the matter of storage space. On 
the general farm from which cream is sold, only a little cream is 
produced each day. Over a period of a week, however, these small 
amounts make as much as 5 or 10 gallons. Under these conditions 
most farmers would like to have storage space for this amount in 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 425 

the refrigerator. Sweet cream sells for more than sour cream, thus 
an added income may be obtained by the use of a refrigerator large 
enough to store the cream as it accumulates. 

Dish Washing 

Records were kept on both hand and mechanical dish washing 
in four farm homes. The time was recorded for collecting the dishes 
and stacking them away, and a record was made of the number of 
dishes washed, number of persons served, number of meals served, 
number of gallons of water used, and the kilowatt hours of energy 
used. 

Two different types of dishwashers were used. One machine 
forced the water up thru the dishes by means of a paddle at the 
bottom of the tub. In the other a rotary pump was used that forced 
the water thru a movable pipe pivoted in the center of the tub. 

The dishes were washed with about two gallons of warm or hot 
water. Soap placed in the water proved less effective in washing the 
dishes than water containing washing powder. The water was drawn 
off after the dishes were washed, and about two gallons of hot or 
boiling water was then used to rinse them. A two-minute period was 
sufficient for rinsing. Some operators dried the dishes after they were 
rinsed, but this is not necessary except to polish the glassware. 

A summary of the results secured on four farms with these two 
types of dishwashers is given in Table 22. The time reported as used 
is in all cases the total time for the entire operation including the 
washing of the dishes that could not be put into the machine. 

In washing dishes by hand the average time used daily varied 
from 2.7 to 1.53 hours. With the paddle type of machine the average 
time saved was 22 percent, and with the pump type nearly 28 per- 
cent. Where none of the dishes were dried except the glassware (Co- 
operators 1, 8, and 10), the saving in the operator's time ranged from 
22.4 percent with the paddle machine to 41.6 percent with the pump 
machine. Where the dishes were hand-dried (Cooperator 5), 7.2 
percent of the operator's time was saved. It is evident that the 
larger part of the time reported as saved by the machines is to be 
credited to the fact that when the dishes were washed by machine, 
they were not dried by hand. 

An average of 34 percent to 51 percent more water was used by 
the mechanical washer than when the dishes were washed by hand. 
The energy consumption ranged from 1 to 1.4 kilowatt hours per 
month for the pump type, averaging 1.2 kilowatt hours. For the 
paddle type it ranged from 1.6 to 4.8. kilowatt hours, averaging 3.2 
kilowatt hours. 

The two dishwashers used did not give entire satisfaction because 
the dishes were not always washed clean and about 20 percent of the 



426 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



z 

M 
5 
fe 

O 
SE 



S 



o 

o 

o 
B 

o 

fe 

!B 
O 
O 

^ 



Q 
p 

W 
N 

o 
fa 

a 

X 



O 
I 

P 
a 
m 
H 



5 

C 






S 



03 *_jrl " 

s^.s 



Q^ 03 OT 
> 03 <D 

5*| 



02 g O 

03 S ,-T 



her 
mp 



asher 
paddl 



O 03 > 

-s a^ 



o 
O 



IN <N CO 00 IN 

nmi-4*>n co 



. O rH O IN 



<; oo t> ic o 

S COlM (NCO 



OIO<N co oo 



oqqi> 
, t^oooot^ 



N 

i-l O CO CO 



^-1 

^3 O> 

fl, (N CO<M 



co O i-l CO CO 
^ 1><-H 1C CO 

IN (Ni-H --I 



CD'S 



- 



H 
3 

W 



H 

& 
O 

p^ 

H 



O 

K 



z 

a 
E 
s 

o 




o 
O 

H 
O 
M 
| 
_z 
3 



C 




off 


! O OO 't* Oi 

-e oo as IN os 


W | 
o 




3 J-H 


|3 


o * co 


"8 




rO r* oo ^7^ 

" OOO3(N 


_bfi 




'S 




1 







O<N CO 


*o 
M 


^ CO O3 C5 -l 
Ol C3> TjH O 


'55 


(N 


M 




JH -S 

O M 
-- ^IJ 


g - o o o co 
'S co oo i> oo 

ft COIN IN 
CO 


i 

cr 




43 

a M 


N 


'a S 

H-3 3 

o J3 
H 


S >o CQ 05 

IN 




-4-3 




oq 

T3 
bO 

C g 




llo 

^ a^S 




O3 l-i f-i tH 




(-4 

*" bO bD bC 

2 8 8 S 

> > > 



19S9] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 427 

total dishes could not be washed in the machines due to the size of the 
machine or its shape. Stacking the dishes in the pump type of ma- 
chine was not as easily done as in the paddle type. 

The need for about 40 percent more hot water in mechanical dish- 
washing than in hand washing is an objection from the standpoint 
of many farm women. 

Butter Making 

A butter maker similar to a barrel churn, with the exception that 
it had working rolls, was used by one farmer. The churn had a ca- 
pacity of 12 gallons and was operated by a % -horsepower motor. 

For a period of one year a record was taken of the amount of 
cream churned, the cream temperature, the weight of butter, time 
required to churn the cream, time required to work and wash the 
butter, and the energy used. The results are shown in Table 23. 

The average weight of cream per churning was 49.93 pounds, 
from which 24.73 pounds of butter was obtained. The energy con- 
sumption averaged .99 kilowatt hour per 100 pounds of butter churned. 
An average of 7 minutes was required to work the butter and about 
10 minutes to wash it. The temperature of the cream varied from 
54 to 62 F., averaging 57.4 F. per churning. 

The ripening of the cream and the temperature were the two main 
factors that influenced the time required to do the churning. The 
cream was kept in a refrigerator until a sufficient quantity was col- 
lected to churn. According to expert butter makers, the ideal churn- 
ing temperature is that at which, when all other conditions are normal, 
the churning process is completed in about 45 minutes. The average 
time required per churning with the machine was 52.4 minutes. 

In this test cream of a higher temperature was churned in less 
time than cream of lower temperature. The butter churned from 
higher temperature cream was softer than that churned from lower 
cream temperatures. The best was between 58 and 60 F. 

The salt water that dripped or was thrown on the exposed metal 
parts of the machine caused considerable rusting. The metal parts 
should be covered with suitable paint to prevent this corrosion. 

The energy requirement and the cost of operating a butter maker 
is very slight, and labor is saved over hand methods. With a com- 
bination of refrigerator and churn, high-grade butter can be made 
by the small producer and delivered in reasonably large quantities. 
The main objection to a butter maker of the type tested was the 
first cost. 

Electricity for Lights and for Minor Household Appliances 

Records were kept of the energy consumption for lighting and 
for minor appliances on each of the ten farms during the three years 



428 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 






d 
(N 



r-KNCO '-HK 



03 

aij 

^ 



I 

I 

o 
o 
U 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 429 

of the test. The energy consumption by months, during one year, 
for each of the farms, is given in Table 24. 

Approximately the same amount of energy was used each year 
during the test period. The energy consumption of the minor household 
appliances was practically constant thruout the year; and the seasonal 
variations shown in Table 24 were due to the increased use of lights 
during the winter months. The household appliances consisted of such 
equipment as vacuum sweepers, hand irons, curling irons, fans, bat- 
tery chargers, heating pads, percolators, grills, table stoves, and dish- 
washers. While all ten of the cooperators had vacuum sweepers and 
hand irons, no one cooperator had all of the above equipment. 

As a source of energy for lights and for the operation of minor 
household appliances, electricity is valued by the majority of farm- 
ers more than for any other use to which it is put. Since approxi- 
mately 50 percent of a farmers' time is devoted to work about the 
farmstead, a large part of which is doing chores in the early morning 
and in the evening after dark, electric lights save time and reduce 
the possibility of accidents and fire. They thus fill a very definite 
need in improving living and working conditions both inside and 
outside the home. 



USES OF ELECTRICITY IN FARM PRODUCTION 

This study of the use of electricity for farm operations has been 
directed exclusively to the application of electricity to the various 
belt operations employed in farm work and to the furnishing of heat 
and light. As previously stated, no attempt has been made to adapt 
electric power to field work. 

While a hundred or more uses of electricity on the farm have 
been mentioned by various investigators, only those of most concern 
to Illinois farmers were included in this study. A number of other 
uses investigated at other state experiment stations are listed on 
pages 474 to 478. 

Electricity as a source of power for the productive work of the 
farm is even less commonly used than in the work of the farm home. 

Use of Portable Motor 

A problem which faces every farmer who expects to use elec- 
tricity as a source of power is the proper selection of motor equip- 
ment. There are two methods of power drive in general use the 
line shaft driving several machines and the direct-connected indi- 
vidual motor. There is little question of the superior merit of the 
individual drive so far as efficiency and convenience are concerned. 
In industries it has largely superseded the line shaft. The same is 
true to a certain extent on the farm. Certain equipment including 



430 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

pumps, cream separators, milkers, washers, and ironers, that are used 
many times during the year, are being equipped with direct-con- 
nected individual motors. There are other machines, however, used less 
often and in some instances used only once each season, that are most 
satisfactorily operated with direct-connected individual motors, but 
first cost and limited use makes the purchase of individual motors 
for such machines prohibitive. The portable motor that can be easily 
moved about and attached is the solution. 

Nine portable 5-horsepower motors, equipped with counter shaft 
having three different-sized pulleys for varying speeds were in use 
on the experimental line during the three years of this study. When 
first obtained, only three of the units were equipped with a silent 
chain to drive the counter shaft, and the other units were equipped 
with leather belts; however, these were later equipped with chain 
drives. Each unit was provided with a push-button control switch 
on the end of a 20-foot cable, an overload temperature relay, and 
50 feet of extension cable. A jack was also provided for use in tight- 
ening the belt between the portable outfit and the machine driven. 
A small house was made to protect the motor from rain and snow 
when it was used outside. 

The portable motors were used to advantage in grinding feed, 
elevating grain, pumping water, sawing wood, mixing concrete, and 
on one farm a portable unit was used for elevating dirt out of a 
basement that was being enlarged. Most of the farmers were sur- 
prised when they learned how little energy the motors used in doing 
the various operations mentioned. The chain drive gave better satis- 
faction than the belt drive. It was possible to obtain four different 
speeds from the counter shaft with the chain drive, while only three 
speeds were possible with the belt drive. 

The portable motor was one piece of equipment that after the 
loan period expired was kept by each of the active farmers, altho 
there were a few objections to it. Under certain conditions it was 
hard to move around, the leather belt gave some trouble, the push- 
button control switch grounded rather easily, and the flat extension 
cable that was used kinked more easily than round cable does when 
being unrolled for use. Improvements have been made on the units 
since they have been in use and some of the objections have been 
eliminated. 

The results secured indicate that a portable motor is very use- 
ful and the operating expense is very slight when the amount of 
work done is considered. Such a unit will no doubt play a large 
part in the future use of electrical power on most farms. It met the 
needs of the farmstead operations under the methods employed by 
the ten cooperating farmers. However, a 3-horsepower motor was 
substituted for one of the 5-horsepower motors on one of the outfits 



1929} 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



431 



and it is now being used on one farm, supplying sufficient power for 
elevating grain, pumping water, mixing concrete, sawing wood, and 
operating a 4-inch burr mill. 

Elevating Ear Corn With Portable Motor 

* The most efficient results obtained with a drag elevator operated by 
a 5-horsepower portable motor was on Farm 1. Three thousand two 
hundred and forty-one bushels of ear corn (243,100 pounds) were 
elevated 24 feet into a crib with an energy consumption of 21.5 kilo- 
watt hours. The energy required to lift 1,000 bushels 1 foot on the 
seven outside portable drag elevators ranged from .276 to .588 kilo- 
watt hour. The elevator using the greatest amount of energy re- 
quired 49 kilowatt hours to elevate 2,929 bushels (219,665 pounds) 
28 l /2 feet. The average energy used by the seven elevators to lift 




FIG. 16. ELEVATING CORN WITH OUTSIDE ELEVATOR ON 

FARM OF COOPERATOR 3 

About six minutes were required to elevate a 50-bushel load of 
ear corn into this 25-foot crib with the use of a clutch-type jack and 
5-horsepower portable motor. 



1,000 bushels of corn 1 foot was .423 kilowatt hour. The variation 
in energy consumption was due primarily to the condition of the ele- 
vators and the rate of unloading. The range in total lift was from 
17.75 feet to 29 feet. 

The vertical inside elevator with a 56- foot lift owned by Cooper- 
ator X, required .130 kilowatt hour to elevate 1,000 bushels 1 foot, 
or 19 kilowatt hours to elevate 2,661 bushels (199,560 pounds) 56 
feet. The motor was located at the bottom of the elevator but 
operated the buckets by a separate chain connecting both the top 
and bottom shafts. 

The time required to unload 35-bushel loads from the seven port- 
able elevators was 4 to 10 minutes. Some of the elevators were not 



432 



BULLETIN No. 332 



is-si 


(N 

00 


CO ^C CO 
CO t^ CO 


^ 00 
00 t~ 


CO 
(N 




00 
















bcoS 


CO 


1C (N O 


00 


c 


CO 





SM *_r^ ^? 


-c r- 




OO 


c 


(M 


CO 


' i *^ 


sj C^ 


^ CO >C 


(N C 










S 














^ 












&T3 


"3 


00 O O 


OO O 


00 




o 


& 


*? ^| 


O5 CD O 


CO 05 


O5 




CK> 




9 (N 


^H <N 










c 

til 


O 


g S 


(N CD 

00 i 







c 

on 


o3 S} -C 


s IM 


O (N t^ 


co tc 


c^ 






15 *H 




rt< OO C 


(M CO 


CO 




05 


0-3 & 


co 


Tf (M I-H 


CO T-H 






co 


tei 

6.31,2 


<n CD 
12 N 


1> CD (N 

co co o 

co oo I-H 

CO (N (N 


O CO 

O5 OO 
(N (N 


1C 
CO 




s 


J> bD 13 

HI! 


.^ CO 

s 


CO i-l O 
^ CO 00 


1C (N 

1C O 

I-H 




i-H 




CO 


3 || 


00 i-H 


(N O5 CO 

i-H Tf CO 


O 1C 
(M CO 

00 CO 


o 

1C 




o 

s 


0-55 > 


|Q 












EH S ca 


CO 


CO 05 
I-H T-H CO 


1C O5 
1C ^H 


i 




O5 
OS 




(M 


1 t d 


(N (M 








- *-i 
5 














bjO<4-H OS 


" CO 


00 O O 


(M Tj< 


00 




CO 


C > 


* T ~^> ^^ 




^* T^ 


CO 




1C 


C 
M U 














5 1 




^ 


X 


& 






hO o3 


^4 


O^ 4 O C 1 


<*< 00 


N 




CD 


'53 => > 


ii, <N 


(M (N (M 


(N IM 


rH 




1C 


^^ ^ 














U 

11 fi 


. 05 

S ^ 


O O5 M< 
CO CO <N 


1C I-H 


s 




i-H 


ggj 


1 t " 


C, t. ^ 


t^. co 


CO 




1C 




CiC 


iO iO *O ^C ^C ^O 


1C 1C 1C 1C 






n 


-o -g 


CNC, 
(N CO 


II 11 II 

rH I^ ^^ rH ^5 *O 


(N (M <M<N 
II II 

t^i-H OOO 


COOS 





(N 

os 


1 13 


l-H 
1 1 
T-l (N 


rH C^ ^H ^H ^H O^l 

ii ii ii 

1-H 1-H i-H (N 1-H rH 


i-H i-H 
II II 


f ( 


5 

03 


1 












3 




S-c 










I 




O 















1 










CD 




s* 










a 3 




o 










g 




U 










0) 






rt 


?s co' ^' 


? r- 


w 




* 



1929] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 433 

fed to full capacity, as considerable seed corn was selected, necessi- 
tating a longer period of time to unload. 

Portable 5-horsepower motors were used to drive all the eleva- 
tors. These furnished ample power for doing the work. A 3-horse- 
power motor was substituted for one of the 5-horsepower motors in 
1926 and supplied sufficient power. A clutch type speed jack was 
used on all the elevators tested. The data secured are summarized 
in Table 25. 

Several special tests were made in elevating individual loads of 
ear corn, a voltmeter, ammeter, and kilowatt-hour meter being used. 
It was found that less energy was required for elevating a single load 
than was used as an average for each of several loads. This reduc- 
tion in the case of the single load was due to a speeding up of the 
work when a single test was being made. This would indicate that 
the 5-horsepower motors were not loaded to their maximum capacity 
under ordinary conditions and therefore were not being operated to 
their highest efficiency. 

A 3-horsepower motor apparently has sufficient power to handle 
grain elevating satisfactorily. Only a few minutes are required to 
elevate a load, as shown in Table 25. It is evident that an electric 
motor saves time over either the hand method or the horsepower 
method of unloading grain. Electric power saves little more time 
than gas-engine power other than in starting. The convenience and 
ease of control are in favor of the electric drive. Since grain ele- 
vating is a seasonal operation, a portable motor that can be used for 
other work also is highly desirable. 

Drying Soft Corn and Small Grain 

An early frost in 1924 resulted in a large amount of immature 
or soft corn. In an effort to find the most practical way to handle 
this corn with the least amount of spoilage, a cooperative experiment 
was undertaken by the Departments of Agronomy and Farm Me- 
chanics. Stationary blowers, driven by electric motors to force either 
cold or heated air thru the corn, were first used. The data obtained 
in these tests have been published in the Annual Report of this Sta- 
tion for 1924-25, (pages 139 and 140). 

During the summer of 1927 a portable oil-burning drier was de- 
signed and constructed. This unit consists of an oil-burning furnace 
and blower mounted as shown in Fig. 17. It was designed for belt 
drive. The blower draws the combustion gases direct from the oil- 
burning furnace; the hot gases are diluted with atmospheric air so 
that the blower delivers the air to the crib or drying unit at the 
desired temperature. 

In March, 1928, this portable drier driven by a 5-horsepower elec- 
tric motor was used in making two tests to study the vajue of drying 



434 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



soft damaged ear corn which had been left in the field all winter. 
The ear corn was purchased from a farmer near Tolono, Illinois, who 
harvested it during the second week in March, 1928. It was in such 




FIG. 17. PORTABLE DRIER IN OPERATION 

The cost of fuel oil and electric energy in drying ear corn with 
high moisture content with this drier ranged from 2 to 7 cents a 
bushel depending on the amount of moisture removed. 

a poor condition that the local elevator refused to buy it. After sort- 
ing, it was found that more than 50 percent of it was in a bad state 
of decay. However, both the good and the poor corn was dried and 
even the unsound portion was found to be of sufficient value to justify 
the drying expense. This corn was dried in a crib with slatted sides 



TABLE 26. DRYING UNSOUND CORN (TEST 1) AND A REASONABLY GOOD QUALITY 

CORN (TEST 2) USING A PORTABLE DRIER AND S-HORSEPOWER 

MOTOR, MARCH 9-15, 1928 





Test 1 


Test 2 


Quantity of corn, undried, pounds. 


17 445 


13 675 


Quantity of corn, dried, pounds 


12 345 


12 410 


Average moisture in grain and cob undried, percentage . 


38 8 


23 39 


Average moisture in grain and cob, dried, percentage 


13.5 


15.50 


Hours of blowing heated air 


21 


7 


Temperature of heated air, degrees F 


170-180 


160-170 


Fuel oil used, gallons per hour 


4.97 


4.57 


Total fuel oil used, gallons 


108.16 


32 


Kilowatt hours of energy used (5-horsepower motor) 


79.6 


27.6 


Cost of fuel oil and electric energy per bushel of dried corn 1 . . . . 
Cost per 1,000 pounds of water removed 1 


$.072 

$2.57 


$.022 
$3.13 


Cost per 1,000 pounds of ear corn (dry basis) 1 


$1.03 


$ .32 



!The figures cover only the cost of fuel oil (8.1 cents a gallon) and energy (5 cenle 
a kilowatt hour). 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 435 

and a ventilator core in the center into which the air was blown. 
The results of this work are shown in Table 26. 

Owing to the fact that considerable shelled corn was put in with 
the unsound portion, the air was unevenly distributed and as a result 
there were spots which did not dry. The higher moisture content of 
the unsound corn resulted in a lower cost for each 1,000 pounds of 
water removed but in a higher cost per bushel of dry corn. The 
5-horsepower electric motor furnished adequate power and proved 
to be an economical and practical source of power for the operation 
of the portable drying unit. 

In July and August, 1928, the portable drier was used to dry 
damp wheat; the power was supplied by a 5-horsepower electric 
motor. The wheat was dried in batches by placing a layer of the 
grain on a false floor and then forcing heated air up thru it by 
means of the portable drier. The false floor was 7 feet by 9 feet 
in size and was made of slatted construction and covered with screen. 
Efficient results were secured by blowing the heated air thru an 
11-inch depth of grain. Wheat was dried down from 19.2 percent 
moisture to 13.7 percent moisture at the rate of 34 bushels an hour. 
The cost of fuel oil and electric energy was 1% cents a bushel of 
dried grain. 

A portable drying unit such as described would be of practical 
value on many farms for drying seed corn, commercial corn, and 
small grains. When corn with reasonably high moisture content is 
stored in an ordinary crib there is always a possibility of spoilage 
at the center, and by forcing in some heated air, spoilage may be 
prevented. 

Drying Sweet-Clover Seed 

On one of the test farms 246 bushels of Grundy county sweet-clov- 
er seed were harvested with a combine harvester. It was thought that 
the seed would be high in moisture content, and equipment was in- 
stalled in a seed house at Tolono, Illinois, to dry and clean this 
seed. The equipment consisted of a vertical elevator, a 25-bushel 
magazine bin, a vertical chute 8 inches by 14 inches by 18 feet, with 
copper screen baffles spaced 18 inches apart, a blower, a 1-horse- 
power motor, 1,750 R.P.M., a heater, and a Clipper fanning mill. 
The heater used was a coal brooder stove. A steel jacket was put 
around the stove with brooder hover over the top. 

The hot air was taken from the lower part of the jacket near 
the floor, and the fresh air came in from the top and directly over 
the stove. A slide door and damper was installed in the pipe lead- 
ing to the blower so as to regulate the temperature of air if needed. 
A thermometer was installed at the entrance of the hot air into the 
vertical chute. Another thermometer was installed at the top of 
the vertical chute. 



436 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

The rate at which the seed flowed down the chute was controlled 
by an adjustable door at the foot of the magazine bin. Samples of 
the seed were taken before and after each batch was run thru the 
drier, in order to determine the moisture content. 

The seed contained a considerable amount of green hulls when 
it came from the harvester, but practically all of this was removed 
when it passed thru the fanning mill. The ripe seed was hulled very 
clean by the combine-harvester and no difficulty was experienced in 
storing the seed, as the moisture content was between 12 and 14 
percent after it passed thru the mill. The amount of material such 
as light seed, hulls, and foreign material removed by the mill was 
approximately one-third by weight. 

The moisture content of 664 pounds of sweet clover seed was 
reduced from 13.8 percent to 12.6 percent by blowing heated air 
thru it for 3% hours at the rate of 750 cubic feet a minute and at 
an average temperature of 108 F. The temperature of the heated 
air as it came out of the shaft was about 92 F. 

Another batch of 651 pounds was run for 34 minutes and the 
moisture content reduced from 12.6 to 11.6 percent by blowing heated 
air thru it at an average temperature of 135 F. and at a rate of 
790 cubic feet a minute. The temperature of the air as it came out 
of the shaft was about 109 F. The average room temperature in the 
tests was 87 and 89 respectively. 

An average energy consumption of .13 kilowatt hour per bushel 
was required to operate the fanning mill elevator and blower. About 
20 minutes were required to fan and elevate 10 bushels of seed into 
the magazine and about 20 minutes to empty the magazine. The 
amount of coke used was so small that it was not recorded. The 
temperature of 135 F. did not affect the germination of this seed. 

To summarize: A very small amount of energy was required per 
bushel to dry clover seed. However, there would seem to be little 
need for drying clover seed of less than 14 percent moisture content 
if it is recleaned by a fanning mill. While the drying of clover seed 
is hastened by subjecting the seed to high temperatures, germina- 
tion of the seed is likely to be affected. 

Silage Cutting 

Two tests were made of the use of electric power for silo filling. 
A flywheel type of cutter with a throat width of 16 inches was used. 
It was driven by a 15-horsepower portable motor supplied with 
power from a portable transformer. The silage was lifted to a height 
of 36 feet in one test and to 40 feet in the other test. The knives 
were sharpened and adjusted to proper distance from bar before 
starting. 

The energy required per ton was 1.72 kilowatt hours when the 
cutter speed was 665 revolutions per minute and the lift was 36 feet 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 437 

One and eight-tenths kilowatt hours a ton was used with a cutter 
speed of 780 revolutions per minute and a lift of 40 feet. The ca- 
pacities per hour were 8.1 tons and 7.5 tons respectively. 

In the first test the fodder was green and fed into the cutter 
in the form of a bundle. In the second test the corn was in loose 
form. Considerable trouble was encountered in starting the cutter 
owing to the high starting torque required. Fuses of 75 amperes were 
used, which were too small; the starting current reached a maximum 
of 92 amperes in several trials. When several men pulled on the belt 
to get the cutter up to speed, the motor pulled the load, but not 
satisfactorily. In both tests the 15-horsepower motor failed to fur- 
nish sufficient power to operate it at the speed at which it was run 
and at the rate at which it was fed. Either a larger motor or a lower 
cutter speed would eliminate this trouble. Time did not permit 
making additional tests. 

Three other experiment stations Minnesota, New York, and Wis- 
consin have filled silos successfully with 13-, 15-, and 16-inch cut- 
ters driven by 5-horsepower motors. These cutters were operated at 
reduced speeds, yet an output of 7 to 8 tons an hour was obtained 
with less than 1 kilowatt hour of energy per ton. 1 

Even tho a 5-horsepower motor slows down the job slightly, it is 
a decided advantage on many farms to be able to use one of this 
capacity for ensilage cutting. A smaller crew of men is required to 
get the corn from the field, and the labor at the machine is used more 
efficiently. One man can feed a machine cutting 7 or 8 tons an hour 
with less lost motion than two men can feed a much larger or higher 
speed machine cutting 12 tons an hour. 

Value of Hay Grinding and Chaffing 

A study of the value of grinding and chaffing soybean and alfalfa 
hay for dairy cattle feeding was made in cooperation with the De- 
partment of Dairy Husbandry. The soybean hay used was a choice 
grade of Manchu containing 20 percent of beans and having 18.6 
percent moisture content. The alfalfa was from a first cutting and 
was a uniform lot with coarse stems and a moisture content of 10.6 
percent. 

The same equipment was used in grinding and the same in chaffing 
the two kinds of hay. The grinding was done in a burr mill equipped 
with a cutter-head attachment for roughages. The mill was driven at 
a speed of 1,170 revolutions per minute by a 20-horsepower motor. 
The cutter head was driven 720 revolutions per minute. The chaffing 



1 Reports of these tests appear in Committee on Relation of Electricity 
Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 1, published by the National Committee on the Relation 
of Electricity to Agriculture. 



438 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



I! 

Wo 



a p< 
l| 

^5 

iSo 



5 

oog 

!? -< 



Jg 

I* 


'$ o c<i * -<^ co co oq 

R CO O CO T** <N <N <N 




CO 
1 1 

s? 


^o, 


C 


1 


fe g 


O<NCO-*^Tj( <N 


b 

c3 


11 


CO ^O O5 I s " O^ ^H Oi 
CO CO r-l <N <N CO <N 


3 

IB 

1 


|&S 


<n 


'o 
'C 


= 


1 


* 


u 


" O t O iO N CO CD 


73 

1 


'o 


fe OOOOO500OSOO OO 








1 




Amount 
ground 
per hour 


?2 t^ co oo co i>- 1^- t~- 


-t-i 

Q 
45 

1 


1 amount 
round 


oooooo 


g 






73 
C 
03 


M 
. 

|l 


.S c^ oooo-*-* 

g l> O5I> CO 00 00 


i 
! 






is 






pi 






a 












J3 


















O 


M 




~1 






S 


OJ 




cu 


H 










s 




So 






cS 






.:.::: 2 


"* 
















^-t W CO -^ 1C CO 





p 

o 

I 

J 

OQ 
g 

H 


ag 

> o 
^S 

(H 1 ^ 

5 o 

g 

K 5 

bs 

W 

O a; 
* H 

M S 
^o 



^ 

a o 

(HW 

16 



H 

n 

S 
QQ 

O 

2 

S 



w 
o 



Ij 


|oo co 







I -"" ^ 




II 


l^t. t. 




H S, 


g 




^_ >> 


2 ooio 




O O) to 


^ iot-."oo : 




Hg^ 


- 











s 

CO 

'o 


eoi>t^ co 

to OOOOt~ 00 
51, T-t f-l i-H i-l 




Amount 
chaffed 
per hour 


COO(M (M 
^MW ra 








flj 


ill 


|11 


_fl 

CD" 

(N 

O5 
i 1 






d 

s 


I 
1.1 


S rt<Nb- 


h 

Ol 
PH 


^ v 


gCO^^ 


1 






i 






-s 






of 


1 


g 


73 

o 

g 




i 


* 




i-J(NCO 





1929] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 439 



was done with an ensilage cutter having a throat width of 
inches and driven at a speed of 765 revolutions per minute by a 30- 
horsepower electric motor. Each outfit required two men to operate it. 

The power requirements for grinding and chaffing soybean hay 
varied considerably with the way in which the hay was fed into the 
grinder and ensilage cutter. The least energy was consumed when 
the operator fed the machine uniformly. In order to produce a more 
even feed into the knives, springs were fastened on the heavy feed 
roll of the ensilage cutter. The capacity of the ensilage cutter aver- 
aged 1.8 tons an hour, while the capacity of the feed grinder averaged 
.36 ton an hour. The energy required to chaff soybean hay aver- 
aged 5.7 kilowatt hours a ton, while grinding soybean hay required 
an average of 29.2 kilowatt hours a ton. (Tables 27 and 28) 

The energy required to chaff and grind alfalfa hay was approxi- 
mately 40 percent less than the energy required to chaff and grind 
soybean hay, 3.34 kilowatt hours a ton being required for chaffing, 
and 18.6 kilowatt hours a ton for grinding (Tables 29 and 30). This 
reduction in energy was no doubt due partly to the low moisture con- 
tent of the alfalfa and partly to its finer stems. The capacity of both 
machines was greater in grinding and chaffing alfalfa hay, owing 
to the same conditions. 

It will be noted that 5.9 percent of the ground alfalfa hay was 
coarser than 5 millimeters, and 9.3 percent of the soybean hay was 
coarser than 5 millimeters (Table 31). Of the chaffed alfalfa, 26.2 
percent was coarser than 5 millimeters; and of the soybean hay, 
74.3 percent was coarser than 5 millimeters. While 17.1 percent of 
the ground alfalfa passed a % -millimeter sieve, only 14.6 percent 
of the ground soybean hay passed the same size sieve; and while 
10.1 percent of the chaffed alfalfa passed the %-millimeter sieve, 
only 3 percent of the chaffed soybean hay passed this size. It is 
evident that the alfalfa hay was ground and chaffed considerably 
finer than the soybean hay even tho the energy required was less. 

Whole soybean hay, without treatment, was fed to three groups 
of 10 cows each, at the rate of 1% pounds daily for each 100 pounds 
of live weight, during three five-week feeding periods. The chaffed 
and ground hay was fed at the rate of 1% pounds daily. Refuse, or 
waste, totaled 13.7 percent for whole hay, 2.4 percent for chaffed 
hay, and 1.8 percent for ground hay. Refuse in the case of whole 
and chaffed hay consisted of very coarse stems. 

Previous experimental work done by the Dairy Department on 
soybean straw showed that coarse stems were very low in feeding 
value. Using this previous work as a basis, it was calculated that 
the chaffing and grinding of the soybean hay gave a gain of about 
5 percent, or 45 pounds and 50 pounds respectively, of digestible dry 
matter, or an approximate saving of 100 pounds of hay for each 



440 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



I I M 



09 


.8 <M Tf< Tt< OOO 


<o 


IS, 

HJ 





MS 


&g 


OINOiMOOOOO 


co 


a M 




00 





^ 




"3 Ns 


^ omio cofl>cic o>o 




O OP GO 


iJfi ' i-H r-( 





3 


. ooooooooo 


(N 
CD 


.2 


CO i-H O O O> O5 rH r-l O 


o 








Amount 
ground 
per hour 


S OOOOCD^OOOOCO 
CS CO Oi CO 00 OS 00 00 i> OO 


1 


111 


i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 r-( i-H i t i 1 




H 

11 

3 1 * 3 

H 


SOO ^O O^ t^ CO t^ b 00 t* 














































+a 






JS 






H 










gL 






oS 






1 






<! 




^H IM co * io co i> oo <y> 





g, 



1929] 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



441 





o 


S 






gS 

3 _o 


g CO CO O5 CM 




1* 


g o os Oi a 






II 


|c^oco 




a> 


CO ^ '' " " 












j ft 


^ "~ 


>< 














PQ 














Q 


CO 
4i 


i S3 


g' CO ^ t> O 








H 


^ 


fl "^ 


*"* l^ ?**> ro pf* 










'M 


coS 


&-"-"-"* 


a 









41 






H 


bO O 


S M O ^tl 


g 


M 






H 


4> 


^J Oi O5 N Ct 




'3 


i 




O 




CO (M CO CO 


Q 




"S 

s 


ll 


g C 00 CO i-l 
^ t^ lOCOCN 


W 






<i 


4) 


C3 


ft, <N CN.tN 


o 
j 








50 


d 




5 


o3 bD'^ 
O 02 wj 


^ pi>o 


*| 


O 
Q 


A t- 

:d 4) 


j 1C COOOO 


'5* 


Hg = 


^ IOCOTJ< 


fe 


_a 


S 


^> ^^ ^^ CO O5 


S g 






^ a 


3 

4) 


i i 




^ 






% 


"S 


_jL i 




<-S 


| 




^ << 


o 


rS 4> 


g O tN O5 CO 


W OH 

b& 


E 

'o 


g GOOO CO 
S (N O O5 O 

Ji, i-H i 1 i 1 


12 Q 




a| 
^ a 


fe O<N CM CO 
fi, i ( i 1 


|w 






GQ 




s 




hH OH 






w 




o rt 


CD O i-l <-H 


JV fe 










+j S 


^ rf< COt-O 


GO O 

"-H 0< 


HI 


^s 


S 

a 




w 


fi, 1 i 1 i 1 


1 


^"o 


CO CD CO IO 


la 




^aj 




*6 

< rT-i 






o <J 


iS 


o g 


1 8888 

^. CO CO CO CO 


j^j ^ 






|3 ^ 




m 


s 


m 






4) C 








ii 


111 


SOO 
id O 
^ lOiOiO 


3 Q 




fl 
S 




"<Q 




"* <N<NCN 


S 05 | 




I 


a o.g 


CB 


o3 




CO ^ PU 




83 


O 83 O Gi 


fc 






2 |g 






oooo 


&H 






^ HH M 

1 feo 










o 



co 

H 


|l 


.S 10 id >O 
g -*(N (M 


3 ft. S 
M < 

^ W 

O Qj 

^ 


| 


~ > 


a a 


3 








| Q 


W 




^^3 


<! 






-5 






\JU \JA ^*< ^S 


H 






a? .-4 
-*-* m 














0! CQ 

H 










<H 




"S W 










-*^ 




















"S ^ 




SJ 








to 


a) 


'o" 


3 - 








I 




* 


3*0 








4> 








<P 



442 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



ton fed. 1 About 4 percent, or 80 pounds for each ton fed, was saved 
by feeding ground and chaffed alfalfa hay instead of whole hay. 

The value of chaffing or grinding alfalfa or soybean hay depends 
largely upon the market value of these roughages. When they are 
cheap, the cost of chaffing or grinding is greater than the saving in hay 
and digestible dry matter. When the price of hay is normal, the prac- 
tice of chaffing is questionable and when the price of hay is high, it 
may be justified from the standpoint of cost. 

From the standpoint of enonomy and feed value, chaffed hay is 
much more desirable than ground hay. Chaffing gives practically the 
same feeding value as grinding and requires considerably less labor 
time and electric energy. 

Grinding Grain for Stock Feed 

To obtain the best results in feeding grain to dairy cattle and poul- 
try it is essential that it be ground. The problem of grinding grain is 

therefore one that confronts a 
large number of farmers. Little 
is known as to how fine grain 
should be ground for dairy cows, 
chickens, hogs, and other livestock 
in order to get the best results. 
The practice of grinding grain 
very fine for general feeding is, 
however, generally questioned. 

In the tests made in this study 
the energy requirements of several 
feed mills were determined for 
grinding different grains to vari- 
ous degrees of fineness when driv- 
en by electric motors. A summary 
of the data secured in testing a 
6-inch and an 8-inch burr mill is 
given in Table 32. The degree of 
fineness was determined by obser- 
vation and designated as fine, 
medium, or coarse. The 6-inch 
mill was driven at a speed of 550 
revolutions a minute and the 8- 

inch mill at a speed of 970 revolutions a minute. The results show 
that badly-worn burrs consume 30 to 100 percent more energy than 
new burrs in grinding the same grain to the same degree of fineness. 
Burrs are not very expensive and should be replaced when the cutting 
edges are worn. 

'See Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station Annual Report for 1925-26, 
page 90. 




FIG. 18. FEED GRINDER USED FOR 
GRINDING EAR CORN 

Grinding ear corn presents quite a 
problem to many Illinois farmers. A 
large hopper or magazine and wagon 
elevator attachment are desirable 
from the standpoint of saving time 
and labor. 



1929} 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



443 



TABLE 32. FEED GRINDING TESTS WITH G-!NCH BURR MILL DRIVEN BY 5-HoRSE- 
POWER MOTOR AND 8-lNCH BURR MILL DRIVEN BY 20-HoRSEpowER MOTOR 



Test 



Kind of grain 



Rate of 
feeding 
per hour 



Size of 
burrs 



Fineness 



Energy per 
100 pounds 



Ibs. 

1 Ear corn 1 540 

2 Ear corn 1 660 

3 Ear corn 2 250 

4 Ear com 1 965 

5 Shelled corn 5 670 

6 Shelled corn 1 400 

7 Shelled com 995 

8 Shelled corn 630 

9 Shelled corn 2 785 

10 Oats. . 2 220 

11 Oats 486 

12 Oats 360 

13 Oats 746 

14 Oats 2 175 

15 Wheat 1 302 

16 Wheat 1 500 

17 Wheat 2 1 050 

18 Soybeans 900 

19 Soybeans 2 640 

J High moisture content. 2 Dull burrs. 



in. 
6 
6 
6 
6 



Medium 
Medium 
Medium 
Coarse 

Fine 
Fine 
Fine 
Fine 
Medium 

Fine 

Fine 

Fine 

Medium 

Medium 

Fine 
Fine 
Medium 

Medium 
Medium 



kw. hrs. 
.449 
.662 

1.310 
.340 

.339 
.440 
.478 
.660 
.476 

.772 
.770 
.800 
.401 
2.500 

.410 
.418 
.571 

.720 
.941 



TABLE 33. SUMMARY OF FEED GRINDING TESTS WITH 
Two SMALL-SIZED HAMMER MILLS 



Test 



Kind of grain 



Rate of 
feeding 
per hour 



Size of 
screens 



Fineness 



Standard 
modulus 



Determined 
by obser- 
vation 



Energy 
used per 

100 
pounds 



2 hp. motor, 
1,900 r.p.m. 
Shelled corn . 
Shelled corn . 
Shelled corn . 
Shelled corn . 

5 hp. motor, 
3,900 r.p.m. 
Shelled corn . 

Oats 

Soybeans. . . 



160 

345 

690 

1 760 



040 
947 
941 



3 /1 



index no. 



2.90 
3.33 
3.88 
4.37 



Medium 



Coarse 



Medium 
Medium 
Medium 



kw. hrs. 



1.634 
.692 
.254 
.129 



.550 
.820 
.590 



444 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

Ear corn high in moisture content causes considerable trouble in 
bridging or clogging the hopper in a 6-inch burr mill. More power is 
also required to grind it than corn of low moisture content. The addi- 
tion of a cob crusher to one of the 6-inch burr mills used by one of 
the cooperating farmers remedied the trouble of bridging to a great 
extent. That a mixture of some grains often aids the process of grind- 
ing was also found. Soybeans, for example, when ground alone tend 
to cake on the burrs and generally clog the mill or reduce the capacity. 
The mixing of shelled corn or oats with soybeans results in a better 
grinding than when the soybeans are ground alone. 

Tests with two small hammer mills are reported in Table 33. In 
four of the tests the degree of fineness was determined more precisely 
by a method recently adopted by the American Society of Agricultural 
Engineers. 1 It is evident from these tests that grain that is ground fine 
requires more energy than when it is ground coarse. One of the mills 
required 12.5 times as much energy to grind shelled corn fine when 
using the % 6 -inch screen as when grinding it coarse with a % -inch 
screen. It is also evident from the tests with these two hammer mills 
that the speed of the hammers (revolution per minute) , as well as the 
size of screen used, determines the fineness of grinding. 

In general both the hammer and burr types of mills give satisfac- 
tory results in grinding feed. The hammer type of mill is especially 
adapted for fine and medium grinding. With the proper size of screens 
this type of mill operated at a sufficient speed will grind grain to prac- 
tically any degree of fineness. There are no burrs to replace and no 
parts especially exposed to wear, and thus there is little upkeep ex- 
pense and little reduction inefficiency with use. The hammer mill is 
not easily injured by foreign materials in the grain or by running 
empty, and it is therefore adaptable to automatic control when driven 



^Until recently there have been no definite standards with which to describe 
the degree of fineness to which grain has been ground. Since it is more ex- 
pensive to grind feed fine than to grind it coarse, it is important that definite 
standards be generally recognized. Furthermore, a standard method of re- 
porting the degree of fineness by sieve analysis would make possible more accu- 
rate comparison of results of feed grinding tests and feeding experiments. The 
Rural Electric Division of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 
recently adopted the following method for this purpose: A 250-gram sample 
of ground grain,; or in the case of forage a 100-gram sample, is oven-dried 
at 100 Centigrade to constant weight. The sample is then placed on the 
coarsest of a group of standard Tyler 8-inch screens of the following sizes: 
%-inch, and Nos. 4, 8, 14, 28, 48, and 100, and is shaken for five minutes with 
a Ro-tap shaker. The degree of fineness is then determined by recording the 
a<5cumulative percentages of the material retained on the several screens be- 
ginning with the coarsest. The modulus (or measure) of fineness is equal to 
the sum of these percentages divided by 100. Thus the fineness modulus 
ranges from for a feed all of which passes thru the 100-mesh, or smallest 
screen, to 7.0 for feed all of which is retained on the %-inch, or largest, screen. 
The finer the product is ground the smaller the index number. 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 445 

by an electric motor. Most of the burr mills meet the requirements 
for medium and coarse grinding. They are also satisfactory for grind- 
ing ear corn. The two types compare quite favorably as to energy 
requirements. 

With either the burr or the hammer mill the energy required and 
the rate and quality of grinding are affected by the kind, quality, and 
moisture content of the grain. With other conditions the same, oats 
require the greatest amount of energy per hundred pounds ground and 
shelled corn the least; barley and soybeans range between. With the 
hammer mill the fineness of grinding depends largely on the size of 
the screen, the rate of speed, and the rate of feeding. With the burr 
mill the fineness of grinding depends on the set and condition of the 
burrs, the speed, and the rate of feeding. 

The results of these tests with feed grinders bear out the following 
established facts: 

1. Worn burrs consume an unnecessary amount of energy. 

2. More energy is required where the grain is high in moisture 
content. 

3. Finely ground grain requires considerably more energy than 
medium or coarsely ground grain. 

4. Ear corn with high moisture content clogs the hopper in a 6-inch 
burr mill more than does dry ear corn. This is remedied to some ex- 
tent by the use of a cob crusher. 

5. Unless ear corn is well broken up or crushed before being put 
into a small hammer mill, the speed of grinding is greatly reduced 
and an undue amount of energy is used. 

6. A small feed grinding unit is practical for many farms. 

Oat Hulling 

There are several factors that affect the results of hulling oats 
such as the uniformity of the oats, moisture content, weight per bushel, 
the speed of the machine, and the air and feed adjustment of the ma- 
chine. While the moisture content and weight per bushel are impor- 
tant factors affecting the hullability of oats, no doubt the uniformity 
of the oats is the most important factor. 

In this study three different types of oat hullers were operated and 
tested under various adjustment in cooperation with the Animal Hus- 
bandry Department of the University. Two machines were of the 
same type but of different capacities. The groat, or oat kernels, were 
fed to hogs by the swine division to determine their value when in- 
cluded in a ration of corn and protein supplement. A number of differ- 
ent combinations of adjustments were tried on four different machines. 
The best results obtained are given in Table 34. 

The impact method was used to remove the hulls from the kernel. 
On Machines 3 and 4, screens and a fan were used to reduce the losses. 



446 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



!| 

il 







hi 00 COCO i-( 



CO Tf< 1C CO Tt< 

""' CO CO CO C 



,C a> 

.SPS-S 
a> ft 3 
^ ^ 



s-s 

3 fl 



0,03 

O o ft 



oc o 

C ? e ? 
<M id 



o> g 

S.I 



s 

li 

J-o 

"2 

ti 

> 

O 03 



S3 



a DQ 



p^-g 
S * 

II 

III 





c3 o 



bo o 

c.Q 



I ^ 



O co oa 

H = 



sil* 



CD.S t. 03 

> +* a3T3 
<1 ft 



a> (H M 

|l 
11 

<J "0 



3.1 a 
' 



O 

-5 

g 



. 

OJ 



. OO 
oo i i 

3 CO(N 



~ i-H 



1C CO 

. oo 

03 CO -^ 

1:2 



COT-H 

doo 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 447 

An increase in huller speed above a certain number of revolutions per 
minute resulted in more finely cracked kernels and in most cases a 
greater loss occurred. This was very evident with the first two ma- 
chines, where no screens were used. By mixing light oats with heavy 
oats, the effect of lack of uniformity was obtained. In hulling this 
sample it was very difficult to reduce the losses to a minimum and 
still secure groat free from whole oats and hulls. Whole oats contain 
about two-thirds groat, or oat kernel. The percentage of groat lost 
with hulls varied from 8.4 percent to 18.5 percent, and the percentage 
of the groat obtained that was actually hulled ranged from 56.7 to 73.0. 
A higher percentage of groat free from whole oats and hulls was ob- 
tained, but the losses were very heavy. The same quality and grade 
of oats were not available for all the tests, which partly accounts for 
the differences in results. 

Whether or not it will pay a farmer to hull oats that are to be fed 
to hogs is partly a question of the extent to which the nutritive value 
of the oats is increased. On this point the following paragraph taken 
from the Annual Report of this Station for 1926-27 (page 80), is of 
interest (the oats were included in a ration with corn and protein 
supplements) : 

"Whether hulling oats will pay more than feeding them finely 
ground will depend upon the proportion of oats fed and the cost of 
the two operations. When the two were fed in the ratio of 1 to 4 
with corn, oat kernels were worth from $1.21 to $2 a hundred pounds 
more than finely ground oats were worth when fed under similar con- 
ditions and calculated to the same price schedule." 

Milking With Machines 

Data were secured on two pipe-line types of milking machines used 
by cooperators on the experimental line. One machine was driven by 
a %-horsepower motor and the other by a %-horsepower motor; each 
operated two single units. One machine was used in milking 10 cows 
and the other, 8 cows. The operating time, number of cows milked, 
total weight of milk produced, total weight of milk stripped by hand, 
time required to clean machines, and the energy required was recorded 
for a period of 12 months on one farm and 10 months on the other 
farm. To determine the time saved by use of the machines, a record 
was also secured of the labor required to milk these two dairy herds 
by hand. A summary of the results secured in using the two machines 
is given in Table 35. 

The first machine required an average of 27.4 kilowatt hours a 
month to milk 10 cows producing an average of 30.22 pounds of milk 
a day. The energy consumption ranged from 33 kilowatt hours in 
November to 22.8 kilowatt hours in July. This difference in energy 
consumption was due in part to the stiffness of the oil in the pump 
caused by cold weather. 



448 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



The range in energy consumption per 100 pounds of milk drawn 
was .47 kilowatt hour when the cows were producing an average of 
25.2 pounds a day to .24 kilowatt hour when they were producing an 
average of 35.6 pounds a day. The average was .33 kilowatt hour 
per 100 pounds of milk drawn, as shown in the table. The effect of 
the variation of milk flow on the kilowatt hours of energy used is illus- 
trated in Fig. 20. A decline of 31.6 percent in the milk flow coincided 
with an increase of 95 percent in energy consumption per 100 pounds 
of milk drawn. 

The care of the first machine required an average of 18 minutes a 
day. It was cleaned by drawing cold and hot water thru the units 
after the evening's milking and thoroly washing it with hot water 




FIG. 19. MILKING MACHINE IN OPERATION ON 

FARM OF COOPERATOR 4 

About 50 percent of the labor that was re- 
quired when milking by hand was saved by the 
use of this mechanical milker. 



after the morning's milking, using washing powder and brushes. The 
vacuum pipe line was cleaned once or twice each month. It is essential 
that the milking machine be carefully cleansed in order to produce 
milk with a low bacterial count. 

The second machine required an average of 20.2 kilowatt hours a 
month to milk 8 cows producing an average of 18.34 pounds of milk 
a day. The energy consumption ranged from 15 kilowatt hours in 
January to 25 kilowatt hours in July. This variation was due largely 
to the quantity of milk produced. The variation in energy consump- 
tion was from .87 kilowatt hour per 100 pounds of milk drawn when 
the cows were producing an average of 14.3 pounds of milk a day to 
.35 kilowatt hour when they were producing an average of 24.5 pounds 
a day. The average was .52 kilowatt hour per 100 pounds of milk. 
A decrease of 69 percent in milk flow caused an increase of 148 percent 
in the energy required to draw 100 pounds of milk. The care of this 
machine required an average of 20 minutes a day. 



19891 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



449 



With the first machine 9 minutes of one man's time was required 
per cow per day to do the milking (including cleaning time), while 
20.4 minutes of one man's time was required to do the milking by hand. 
With the second machine 9.6 minutes of one man's time was required 
per cow per day, while 17.6 minutes was required to do it by hand. 



DEC. JAN. FEB. M4E. APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT OCT NOV. 



QUANTITY OF MILK. 
K.W-HB.S. PEtt. 106* 




FIG. 20. VARIATIONS IN ENERGY REQUIRED FOR MILKING 
The above graph represents the records obtained on a herd of 10 cows, a 
2-unit milking machine with a %-horsepower motor being used. The energy 
consumption per 100 pounds of milk drawn ranged from .47 kilowatt hour 
when the cows were producing an average of 25.2 pounds a day to .24 kilowatt 
hour when they were producing an average of 35.6 pounds a day. 



In both cases the saving of labor time was approximately 50 percent. 

The first machine drew 89 percent of the total milk produced and 
the second 85 percent. It was not practical to leave the milker on the 
cow any longer than required to draw all but 1 to 1.5 pounds of milk. 
The milking operation can be speeded up considerably if this practice 
is followed or even if the unit is removed sooner. 

A third pipe-line milker used on a herd of 20 cows on a farm not 
on the experimental line was investigated in an attempt to reduce the 



450 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



energy consumption by changing the size and location of the pumping 
unit. The results are recorded in Table 36. 

The machine as purchased and installed by the farmer included a 
4-unit pump and a 5-horsepower motor. This equipment was located 
in a building about 75 feet from the barn. During the first period of 
the test, records were kept of the energy consumption and the milk 
drawn for a period of one month with the arrangement as it was found 
on the farm. Under this original arrangement the energy consumption 
for each 100 pounds of milk was 1.38 kilowatt hours. The pump was 
then moved to the barn and a 3-horsepower motor substituted for the 
5-horsepower motor. Records were kept for two additional months 
with this installation. The energy consumption per 100 pounds of milk 
was 1.02 kilowatt hours, a saving of .36 kilowatt hour. There are four 

TABLE 36. INFLUENCE OF LOCATION AND SIZE OF PUMP AND MOTOR ON ENERGY 

CONSUMPTION OF MILKING MACHINES FOR EACH 100 POUNDS OF 

MILK DRAWN FROM TWENTY Cows 



Size of equipment 


Milk drawn 
per month 


Energy used 
per month 


Energy used per 
100 pounds 
drawn 


Four-unit pump, 5 hp. motor 1 


UK. 

9 828 


kw. hrs. 
135.5 


kw. hrs. 
1.38 


Four-unit pump, 3 hp. motor 


15 382 


157.3 


1.02 


Two-unit pump, 3 hp. motor 


13 734 


97.8 


.71 


Two-unit pump, 2 hp. motor 


10 040 


72.0 


.72 



'Pump and motor were located about 75 feet from the barn during this test. 
This was the original location of the pump when it was driven by a gasoline engine. 
The high energy consumption prompted this study. The other three tests were made 
with the equipment located in the barn near the pipe line. 

factors that affected this saving the change in the location of the 
pump, the change in the size of the motor, warmer oil, and increased 
milk flow. 

A 2-unit pump of the same make was then secured and substituted 
for the 4-unit pump and records were kept for another two-month 
period when operated by the 3-horsepower motor. The energy con- 
sumption for each 100 pounds of milk drawn was reduced to .71 kilo- 
watt hour, a saving of .31 kilowatt hour over the previous installation. 
This reduction can be attributed to the change in the size of the pump, 
since the motor was the same and the other factors were kept prac- 
"tically constant. 

A fourth test was made with the 2-unit machine operated by a 2- 
horsepower motor. The energy consumption during this test, for each 
100 pounds of milk drawn, was .72 kilowatt hour. Milk production 
declined 28 percent as compared with the amount produced during the 
previous period. It is evident that if the milk production had remained 
constant, the energy requirement for each 100 pounds of milk drawn 



1929} 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



451 



during this test would have been less than during the preceding test. 
However, when compared with the results obtained in the first test 
with the 4-unit pump and 5-horsepower motor, there is a saving of 
.66 kilowatt hour per 100 pounds of milk, or practically 50 percent. 
This saving may be largely attributed to the change in equipment, as 
all factors were nearly constant except for the warmer oil during the 
fourth test period. The total amount of milk drawn during each test 
period, also the energy used per month, and the energy consumption 
for each 100 pounds of milk drawn with the various kinds of equip- 
ment used is shown in Table 36. 



TABLE 37. ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF NINE CREAM SEPARATORS 
ON TEST FARMS 



Cooper- 
ator 


Capacity of 
separator 
per hour 


Rating 
of 
motor 


Length 
of 
record 


Total 
milk 
separated 


Energy used 


Average 
energy 
per 
month 


Total 


Per 100 
pounds 


1 


Ibs. 
850 1 
450 2 
1 000 
1 000 
750 

750 
650 
650 
750 


h.p. 

y* 
y* 

H 

% 

y* 

X 

% 
% 
y* 


mos. 
12 
9 
11 
9 
6 

12 
12 
11 
9 


Ibs. 
23 321 
11 272 
60 576 
19 822 
15 338 

37 976 

37 178 
26 641 
24 238 

28 483 


kw. hrs. 
9.80 
6.95 
24.70 
8.80 
9.00 

19.20 
15.80 
11.00 
14.30 

13.28 


kw. hrs. 
.042 
.061 
.040 
.044 
.058 

.050 
.042 
.041 
.059 

.047 


kw. hrs. 
.81 
.77 
2.24 
.97 
1.50 

1.60 
1.31 
1.00 
1.59 

1.31 


2 


3 


4 


5 


7. . 


8 


9 


10 


Average. . . 



*A 500-pound separator with }i horsepower was used for two months. *A 600- 
pound separator with % horsepower was used for four months. 



The results of this study of milking machines emphasizes the fol- 
lowing points: 

1. To reduce energy consumption, the pump should be located as 
near to the active pipe line as possible. 

2. During the winter months the oil in the crank case of most 
pumps should be thinned with kerosene, or a light grade of oil should 
be used to reduce the energy requirements. 

3. Petcocks properly installed will eliminate considerable trouble 
experienced by the freezing of condensed moisture during low tem- 
perature. 

4. Temperatures lower than 10 F. sometimes cause the pulsators 
to stop operating. 

5. Energy consumption may be reduced to a minimum by carefully 
selecting equipment of proper capacity for a particular condition. 



452 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



Cream Separating 

Records were kept on nine electric-driven cream separators varying 
from 450 pounds to 1,000 pounds capacity. The weight of the milk 
each day and the energy used each month was recorded for a period 
of one year. 

In these tests the energy consumption per 100 pounds of milk 
separated ranged from .040 to .061 kilowatt hour, averaging .047. The 
monthly average per farm for the year 1925-26 varied from .77 to 
2.24 kilowatt hours, averaging 1.31 per month of actual use. During 
1926-27 the monthly average per farm varied from .80 to 1.38 kilowatt 




FIG. 21. CREAM SEPARATOR AJSTD WASHING MACHINE 

OPERATED BY ELECTRIC MOTORS 

With machines that are used daily or weekly thruout the 
year, the use of a small electric motor results in considerable 
saving of labor. 

hours, averaging 1.19 for all farms. The energy required to separate 
100 pounds of milk decreased as the total quantity of milk separated 
per day increased. 

Table 37 gives a summary of results obtained with these tests on 
cream separators. The curves in Fig. 22 give a better idea of the way 
in which energy requirements are affected by variations in the amount 
of milk separated. Since data from which these curves were plotted 
were not secured under controlled conditions, they should not be con- 
sidered as representing the true characteristics of all cream separators 
but simply as indicative of what may be expected under farm opera- 
tion. 



1929} 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



453 



All the curves in Fig. 22 show that a decrease in total milk sepa- 
rated will cause an increase in energy consumption per unit of work 
done. It is to be noted from Curve 1, however, that after a certain 





3SQC 




/ 




ECT 

^AT?A1 


or* TOTAL 
-ED PEB 
USED Pt 

ft 


Qw 
MOH' 
-e 10 

-om 
RATC 
e Ira 


\NTI~ 

r~H 
Poi 


ry o 

N K. 
JNDS 


F M, 
W.HL 






1 

<9OOO 






CFF 

Jet 


LK 

>s. 






J5QO 


















70OO 








CRE 

fa 


AM x 

pt 01 


^&PA 
7 Nfn 


> J2i 
rms 


<=-coe 


D 








65OO 




















GOOD 




























t.TOO 




1 


Cut 


\VES 


1 =10 

2= 6 
3= 7 
f =6 


oolbi 
50 " 
50 " 
50 " 


>. CO.L 


XLC/6 


y pe 


f ffOL 







C; 


^OOD 








No. 
No. 


if 






5 

b 


4-5OO 




t 




No. 

No- 






^ 

s 


4-OOO 




\\ 






















1 


3500 




\\ 


\ 




















&= 

^ 

.-v_l 


inoo 




\\ 


\ 




















"1 
-*fe-l 


2500 




\1\\ 






















<T> 1 

rOr 2oon 




\ 


\\ 


\ 


















\ 

f.*>oo 






\ 


\ 


^ 


*^ 


" 












tooo 






\ 


\ 


X, 


















soo 










\ 



















f-) 






























.02 


O .04-O .OL 


~O .01 

Kwh. 


.0) 

per 


r o .ot 
/OOt 


\o .090 .100 
<b& 































FIG. 22. RECORD OF ELECTRIC CREAM SEPARATORS ON NINE FARMS 
The greatest efficiency in the use of electric energy in operating a cream 
separator is obtained when large quantities of milk are separated. In 1926-27 
the monthly average kilowatt-hour consumption per farm was 1.19. 



454 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

point has been reached, there is no appreciable decrease in the energy 
consumption per unit of work done. This is due to the fact that the 
motor on the separator consumes considerable energy in getting the 
bowl up to the proper speed, but after the bowl has reached its re- 
quired speed, the energy consumed is much less and remains about 
constant. When a large quantity of milk is run thru the machine, the 
energy consumed in starting the bowl is small in proportion to the 
total energy used. If a small amount of milk is separated, the amount 
of starting current used is large in proportion to the total and results 
in an increased amount of energy to 100 pounds of milk separated, as 
is indicated by the lower part of the curve. 

An electrically operated cream separator is run at a more uniform 
speed than a hand-operated machine, and it therefore does a more 
efficient job. The energy used by the motor, as shown in these tests, 
is so slight that the actual cost of operation is almost negligible. Since 
the cream separator is used a large number of times during the year, 
the use of a small electric motor drive is a great convenience, results 
in considerable saving of labor, and is greatly appreciated by farmers 
who have electric power available for such an application. 

Deep-Well Pumping 

In order to study the power requirements for pumping water from 
a deep well, measuring equipment and electric-driven pumps were 
installed on two of the cooperating farms. 

On Farm 3 a hydropneumatic water system was installed with 
provisions made to pump water to a stock tank in case the windmill 
failed to operate the deep-well pump connected to another well. A 
manually operated % -horsepower motor drove the pump jack, which 
was connected to a well about 150 feet deep with a 2-inch casing. The 
home was equipped with a kitchen sink, lavatory, and laundry equip- 
ment. The energy required to pump 1,000 gallons of water with a 
pressure range at tank of zero to 50 pounds was 2.61 kilowatt hours. 

On Farm 10 a %-horsepower motor was used to pump water from 
a 150-foot, 2-inch drilled well into an open attic gravity tank located 
on the third floor of the house. Water was also pumped directly into 
a stock tank located close to the well. During the summer months 
water was pumped into the gravity tank and then out to a stock tank 
in the pasture. The energy required to pump 1,000 gallons of water 
was 2.67 kilowatt hours. 

The water level on Farm 10 was approximately 35 feet from the 
surface and on Farm 3, 25 feet from the surface. 

Painting With a Paint Spray Machine 

A paint spray machine consisting of a pressure pump operated by 
a 1%-horsepower motor and a pressure tank mounted on trucks, and 



1929} 



ELECTRIC POWEB FOB THK FARM 



455 



si* 



o 
M 



ooo 



3 





1 



3 



"3 T3 

-J O 0) 



81 

Si 



n 

O> 

-1 



03 
U 






S 00 

^ 



^00 



OOCOOO 



OOOOCO 



goo 
e coco 



8 : 8 



CO-^IN 
^H O 



g O--H O COCOCO(N(M 



qq 
ooo 

I-H (N 



O t^-OOOO 



^ ^ O5 ^ t^" CM 

00 <N 
CO 1 



COOO 
1 s * ^^ ^^ 

O5 CO 



COrH O i-t i-H 



nn ^rt 

^H(N H 



PQ 



gS O 

ol O 03 
(QpLttHW 



5 





9 



C 

.2-d 

^ 



e 

X! 



456 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



accessories, was used to paint a house, two barns, a poultry house, 
and the laboratories in the Farm Mechanics Building at the University 
of Illinois. A record was taken of the total area covered, the time 
used, the amount of paint used, the weight of the paint to a gallon, 
and the energy used. Inexperienced men operated the spray nozzle, 
or gun, on each building. Table 38 shows the results obtained in 
this test. 

Fifty feet of air hose and 25 feet of paint hose were connected to 
a 5-gallon paint container. A 1 -gallon paint can may be used inside 
the 5-gallon container when small quantities of paint are to be used. 
The pressure on the paint and air at the gun nozzle is controlled by 
separate valves. By the use of the full length of air hose and the 
paint hose, a working range of 75 feet from the machine was obtained. 
In operating the machine a working pressure of about 35 to 40 pounds 
is used to force the paint into the pores of the lumber. The paint 




FIG. 23. ELECTRIC PAINTING MACHINE IN OPERATION 
Five hours of labor were required to paint this poultry house 
with two coats. The area painted included 1,646 square feet. 
The electric energy used averaged .34 kilowatt hour for each 100 
square feet covered once. 



pressure varies slightly, depending on the height of the gun above the 
paint container. Paint of almost any consistency can be applied on 
a building with this type of machine. 

Barn 1 was painted twice with the machine. The surface was in 
very poor condition and required a great deal of paint to cover it. 
Considerable oil was used in the paint for the first application. In 
applying this first coat an average of 33 minutes was required to 
cover 100 square feet of area, whereas the second coat required only 
19 minutes for such an area. One gallon of paint covered an average 
of 220 square feet of barn surface. The average energy consumption 
to 100 square feet of surface painted, taking into consideration both 
coats, was .72 kilowatt hour. 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 457 

The surface of Barn 2 was in fairly good condition before painting. 
The average time required to apply two coats of paint was 20 min- 
utes to 100 square feet of surface. Four hundred and fourteen square 
feet were covered with 1 gallon of paint. The energy consumption 
was .43 kilowatt hour to 100 square feet of surface painted. 

The laboratories in the Farm Mechanics Building had never been 
painted and a considerable part of the wall surface was brick. The 
operating speed was considerably reduced by the many pipes and 
windows and equipment on the floor. Shields were used when painting 
the windows but considerable paint was sprayed on the glass. The 
glass was covered with a cleaning powder before the painting started. 
Considerable paint dust was noticed on the floor after finishing but 
could be swept up with a broom. The average time required to paint 
100 square feet was 23 minutes. Two hundred and seven square feet 
of surface was covered with 1 gallon of paint. The energy consump- 
tion to 100 square feet covered was .33 kilowatt hour. 

A house was painted with a combination of spray machine and 
hand labor. The first coat was applied with the machine in 7 hours, 
or at the rate of 23 minutes to 100 square feet of area. Eight kilo- 
watt hours were used for the job, or an average of .44 kilowatt hour 
to 100 square feet painted. The windows and doors were trimmed by 
hand. The second coat was applied by hand in 55 hours, or at the 
rate of 3 hours 4 minutes to 100 square feet. The hand painting 
was done by a young man who had some experience assisting his father 
in painting during the summer months. 

One gallon of paint applied by the machine covered 378 square feet, 
first coat; whereas 1 gallon covered 512 square feet, second coat, when 
applied by hand. 

The total cost to paint the house with the machine, including hired 
labor, was $65.25 against $148.48, the contractor's estimated price. 

The paint spray machine evidently offers the possibility of con- 
siderable saving of time. Furthermore paint can be forced into cracks 
where the brush cannot possibly reach. Paint can be applied as uni- 
formly with the machine as with a brush after the operator has some 
experience, and there need be no waste. The cost per unit area of 
surface covered is very low compared to contract jobs done by hand. 

The main objection to a paint machine is the first investment. 
Painting is ordinarily done about once in every four or five years, 
which means that a considerable investment is tied up in such a ma- 
chine. This objection may be overcome by several farmers purchasing 
a machine cooperatively. 

Lighting Poultry Houses 

The use of electric lights in the poultry house during the winter 
months as a stimulant for egg production was tried out on two of the 
experimental farms. 



458 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



The lighting units were 40-watt Mazda lamps with a cone-shaped 
reflector 16 inches in diameter by 4 inches high. They were hung 
6 feet from the floor and 10 feet apart. The poultry houses that had 
partitions were figured as separate pens and the number of lighting 
units required was determined by allowing 200 square feet of floor 
space for each unit. This intensity of light was found to be sufficient. 
The lights were turned on early in the morning so as to lengthen the 




I ViALL 



FIG. 24. DEVICE FOR AUTOMATICALLY TURNING ON 

POULTRY HOUSE LIGHTS 

The lights were turned on automatically early in the morning 
so as to lengthen the hen's working day to about 12 or 13 hours. 

hens' working day to about 12 or 13 hours. A knife switch, closed by 
a weight which was released by a cheap alarm clock, was used to turn 
on the lights (Fig. 24) . 

On the farm of Cooperator 2 only pullets were used. The test 
period on this farm was from December 22 to April 1. The following 
table gives the principal facts: 

Total number pullets in pen 172 

Eggs produced 7,773 

Percentage of pullets laying each day 44.7 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 459 

Value of egg sales $196.72 

Cost of feed and lights 89.73 

Return above cost of feed and lights 106.99 

Return per pullet above cost of feed and lights .62 

The feed consisted of a mash having equal parts of corn, wheat, 
oats, meat scraps, and a little salt; a scratch grain made of 5 parts 
corn, 3 parts wheat, and 2 parts oats; and oyster shell plus a small 
amount of green feed. The average energy consumption averaged 
9 kilowatt hours monthly for 100 birds. 

On the farm of Cooperator 8 there was one pen of pullets and one 
pen of hens. The test period extended from December 3 to March 
25. Following are the main items of interest: 

Total number of pullets in pen 149 

Eggs produced 6,725 

Percentage of pullets laying each day 40.0 

Value of egg sales from pullets $186.40 

Total number of hens 123 

Eggs produced 3,784 

Percentage of hens laying each day 2721 

Value of egg sales from hens $104.87 

Total egg sales 29127 

Total cost of feed and light for both pens 136.54 

Return above cost of feed and lights 154.73 

Return per hen above cost of feed and lights .57 

The feed consisted of a mash having 150 pounds each of corn and 
oats, 100 pounds each of bran, shorts, and meat scraps, 50 pounds of 
wheat, and about 1 percent of salt; a scratch grain of 5 parts corn, 
3 parts wheat, and 2 parts oats; and oyster shell plus 1,410 pounds 
of green feed. The average energy consumption per month was 7 kilo- 
watt hours for 100 birds. 

That the use of lights in the poultry house will increase egg pro- 
duction during the winter months has been demonstrated by various 
experimenters and by the experience of poultry growers. The Oregon 
Experiment Station 1 reports that in a test at that station quick- 
maturing pullets under lights produced 11.2 percent more eggs from 
October 1 to April 1 than the quicker-maturing pullets in pens with 
no lights. Less-mature pullets in lighted pens produced 21 percent 
more eggs from October 1 to April 1 than less-mature pullets in pens 
with no lights. Yearling hens produced 8.6 percent more eggs where 
lights were used. The New York College of Agriculture 2 reports that 
winter egg production has been stimulated so that in some instances 
70 percent production has been obtained, that is, 70 eggs each day 
for each 100 birds in the flock. 



'Ore. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 231, page 27. 
*N. Y. (Cornell) Exten. Bui. 90, page 3. 



460 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

The results obtained in this brief study of poultry house lighting 
bear out the findings of similar studies in showing: 

1. The lighting of poultry houses for egg production during the 
winter months when egg prices are high is good practice. 

2. Satisfactory results have been obtained by turning the lights on 
in the morning to supplement daylight and give a 12- to 13-hour work- 
ing day for the laying stock. 

3. Adequate lighting is secured by using 40-watt lamps with proper 
shades spaced 10 feet apart and hung 6 feet from the floor. 

4. The results secured by forcing breeding hens by use of lights 
thru the winter months is not sufficient to justify the practice. 

5. The average energy consumption per month will vary from 6 to 
10 kilowatt hours to 100 birds during the period lights are needed. 

Incubating and Brooding 

Some chicks are raised on practically every farm whether or not 
the principal interest is fruit, grain, livestock, or dairying. There is 
need for an incubator if the chicks are hatched on the farm, and 
usually some type of brooder is used. No special effort was made 
to interest the cooperators on the test line in this type of equipment, 
and no effort was made to obtain it on a loan basis. However, during 
the spring of 1928, 5 incubators and 11 brooders were purchased out- 
right by the ten cooperators on the experimental line. 

All the incubators and brooders were of the same make with the 
same type of overhead heating unit. A bimetal thermostat with a 
pilot light was used for regulating the temperature. Altho the incuba- 
tors varied in size from 144-egg to 504-egg capacity, an energy rating 
of 300 watts was the same for all of them. The brooders were also 
rated at 300 watts. 

The two incubators on which records were obtained were the 504- 
egg capacity. They were both located in an unheated basement where 
the temperature ranged from 45 to 60 F. The energy consumption 
for these incubators was relatively high owing to rather poor con- 
struction and to the low temperature of the room. For one incubator 
it was 79 kilowatt hours and for the other 92 kilowatt hours. Several 
degrees of variation were found in the temperature from the edge to 
the center of the egg tray. With better insulation there would not 
have been so much variation. The current was off for two hours dur- 
ing the test; the farmer noticed it, however, and covered the incubator 
with blankets and no damage resulted. 

The results of these two tests with incubators would indicate that: 
(1) in selecting an incubator careful attention should be given to con- 
struction and to the insulation; (2) the thermostat should be thoroly 
tested and adjusted before the trays are filled; (3) a no-voltage or 
temperature alarm is a desirable feature; (4) attention should be 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 461 

given to having the correct temperature at the egg level; (5) the 
incubator should be placed in a room having a relatively uniform 
temperature; (6) care should be taken to see that the right humidity 
is maintained in the box. 

The brooders used measured 5 feet by 7 feet, were rectangular in 
shape, and were listed as having 500-chick capacity. In no case were 
more than 500 chicks placed in one brooder. In the brooder on which 
records were kept 500 chicks were placed. This brooder was operated 
for a period of one month (May) with a total energy consumption of 
88 kilowatt hours. During the latter part of the period the current 
was turned off during the middle of the day when the weather was 
warm. The brooder was located in a colony brooder house. While 
in the houses with the electric brooders the temperature was not so 
warm some distance away from the brooder as in the coal-stove type 
of brooder, it was sufficiently warm immediately under the brooder. 
In a few instances the straw under the brooder became damp and 
required changing daily. 

In selecting a brooder, care should be observed to see that the heat- 
ing unit has sufficient capacity to maintain a temperature of 90 to 
95 F. in all weather, that there is adequate ventilation and uniform 
distribution of heat, and that the brooder is large enough to avoid 
crowding (7 square inches of floor space under brooder has been recom- 
mended for each chick) . It also seems desirable to have a no-voltage 
or temperature alarm on electric brooders. 

Germinating Seed Corn 

The demand of the farmer for better seed corn and for a method 
by which he can test his own seed corn for disease as well as germi- 
nation led the Agronomy Department, in cooperation with the Farm 
Mechanics Department, to investigate the possibilities of an electri- 
cally heated germinator. 

A report of preliminary studies of seed corn germination by these 
two departments appears in the Illinois Agricultural Experiment Sta- 
tion Annual Report for 1925-26 (page 37) . 

As a result of the preliminary work carried on in 1925-26 several 
special boxes using electricity for heat and electrical equipment for 
temperature control were built and tested. Observations were made 
on three germinators as a part of this study; two were small boxes 
used by individual farmers, and the other a large commercial size 
used by a cooperative seed company. All three of these germinators 
gave excellent results, the temperature being maintained in each of 
them at approximately 80 F. 

The first box was tested on the farm of Cooperator 7 in 1926. It 
had a capacity of 8,000 kernels, or 1,600 ears. The average energy 
consumption per week was 34.4 and per bushel 2.15 kilowatt hours. 
Table 39 gives complete data on the three germinators. 



462 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



The 1,600-ear capacity germinator box measured approximately 
3 by 8 by 3 feet. It was made of well-matched lumber divided into 
two compartments. The insulation of the box from the outside wall was 
obtained by using 2 inches of oiled sawdust, one layer of Celotex, 
2 inches of air space, and another layer of Celotex. The air space 
prevented moisture from being absorbed by the sawdust that might 
come thru from the inside of the box, thus doing away with the danger 
of the sawdust rotting and its insulating property being reduced. The 
inside of the box was painted with a lead-base paint to prevent mois- 
ture from being absorbed by the Celotex. However, an asphalt-base 
paint was found to be more practical for this purpose. Double doors 
were used to prevent heat loss at this point. The inside doors were 
provided with glass windows to permit the reading of the thermometer 
without loss of heat. 



TABLE 39. CORN GERMINATING TESTS WITH ELECTRIC HEAT UNITS, 1926-27 



Germinator 


Capacity 
of box 


Size of 
heating 
unit 


Total 
energy 
per week 


Average 
energy 
per bushel 
tested 


Cost per 
bushel 


li 


ears 
I 600 


watts 
400 


kw. hrs. 
34 40 


kw. hrs. 
2 15 


cents 
6.4 


2 2 


800 


80 


10.96 


1.37 


18.0 


3 


14 000 


5 000 


395.70 


2.82 


7.6 



box was located in an outbuilding, where heat was supplied by a coal stov e 
in the day time. The temperature in the room was below freezing part of the time. 
The germinator was operated in February and March. The cost is based on 3 cents 
a kilowatt hour. 

2 The box was located in the basement of the residence and energy furnished by a 
unit electric plant. The cost is for the fuel and oil used per kilowatt hour. Germi- 
nator was operated for three weeks in April. 

3 Size of room, 10 by 15 by 10 feet. Located in seed house. Germinator operated 
during February and March. A baker's rate was secured for this application, making 
an energy charge of 2 . 7 cents a kilowatt hour. 

The two chambers each contained four trays spaced 5% inches 
apart. The trays were made up of l-by-2-inch lumber with screen bot- 
toms and filled with rotted sawdust and lime. Each tray had a capac- 
ity of 200 ears. The chambers were so constructed that when the trays 
were in place, the circulation of the air passed under and over each 
successive tray. 

The heating apparatus consisted of four 100-watt light bulbs. Two 
bulbs were located as near the center of each chamber as possible. 
The temperature was controlled by a set of relays and a thermostat, 
the thermostat being located between the two chambers and about 
one-third the distance up from the bottom. A pan of water was 
located over the light bulbs in order to maintain proper humidity in 
the box. 



19291 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



463 



Ventilation was provided by means of two %-inch holes located 
at the bottom and near the center of the chamber. At this point the 
cold air comes in contact with the hottest part of the box, as the light 
bulbs are located in the center of each chamber and at the bottom. 
The outlets were near the top and at each end of the box. 




FIG. 25. ELECTRICALLY HEATED SEED GERMINATOR 
This 8-tray germinator was heated by energy 
from a unit plant. When located in a warm room, 
small germinators have been satisfactorily and 
economically heated in this way. The average 
energy used per bushel of corn tested was 1.37 
kilowatt hours. 



A small 8-tray 800-ear-capacity germinator was used by a farmer 
at Sidney, Illinois, and heated by electric energy supplied by a unit 
electric plant. This box was made from a plan furnished by the Farm 
Mechanics Department, University of Illinois. Fig. 25 is an inside 



464 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



view of the germinator showing the details of the construction. 1 Two 
40-watt light bulbs were used for heating elements. The weekly 
energy consumption varied as follows: first week, 13.7 kilowatt hours; 
second week, 11.8 kilowatt hours; and the third week, 7.4 kilowatt 
hours. The average energy used per bushel was 1.37 kilowatt hours. 
The cost of fuel and oil per kilowatt hour was 13.5 cents, 11.3 cents, 
and 14.8 cents respectively. On this basis the average cost of elec- 
tricity to germinate 1 bushel of corn was 18 cents. It is evident from 
these data that it is economical and practical to heat a germinator 
with electricity from a unit electric plant if the germinator is located 
in a warm room. 

Records were kept on a commercial-size electric germinator room 
constructed in a seed house at Tolono, Illinois. The dimensions of the 
germinator room were approximately 10 by 15 by 10 feet. It had a 
14,000-ear capacity with provisions for a 20,000-ear capacity. This 
germinator room was equipped with 100 trays of 700-kernel capacity 




FIG. 26. TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY RECORD IN GERMINATOR 
By means of a thermostat, an even temperature of approximately 80 Fahr- 
enheit and a practically saturated moisture condition may be maintained, which 
are essential for best results in the study of corn diseases with a germinator. 

each, placed on racks on each side of a narrow passageway. Ten 500- 
watt bar space heaters were located below the trays, and water pans 
were placed just above the space heaters. No provision was made for 
ventilating the room. The temperature was regulated by a relay and 
bimetal thermostat. The thermostat was located about 6% feet from 
the floor. A switch operated by a clock automatically changed the 
electrical connections so that the energy used during the day and 
during the night was recorded by two separate meters. The object of 
this arrangement was to benefit from a cheap early-morning rate. 

Six men filled the germinator in five days. On the seventh day the 
trays that were loaded first were ready to be examined for disease and 
germination. The results were then read, recorded, and the trays re- 

'Detailed plans of germinators may be secured from the Farm Mechanics 
Pepartment at a nominal 



1929} 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



465 



loaded. Thus the process of reading off and reloading trays was con- 
tinuous over a period of two months. 

A hygro-thermograph chart (Fig. 26) shows that the temperature 
was held practically constant at 80 F. The humidity was maintained 
between 95 and 98 percent. Over a period of two months the 89,040 
ears of corn tested used 3,166 kilowatt hours of electrical energy. 
Allowing 100 ears to a bushel, the energy used per bushel was 2.82 
kilowatt hours and cost approximately 8 cents a bushel. 

The results of all these studies on germinators show that: 

1. Electric germinators require minimum care in operation. 

2. Regulation, including temperature and humidity control, is 
easily maintained. 

3. Standard bar space heaters or heating coils give better results 
than light bulbs. 

4. The operating cost of a large germinator is not high when a 
heating rate is -provided. 

5. A small-sized germinator should be located in a warm room in 
order to save energy and facilitate reading tests. 

6. Proper humidity and constant temperature are the important 
factors affecting successful germination. Ventilation is not so im- 
portant. 

7. Sufficient capacity is provided by the ordinary unit electric plant 
to supply energy for heating the small size of germinator. 




FIG. 27. MACHINE USED FOR TREATING WHEAT FOR SMUT 
Copper carbonate dust is recommended by the U. S. 
Department of Agriculture as the most satisfactory 
treatment known for controlling stinking smut in wheat. 
The energy consumption of this machine was 2.61 kilo- 
watt hours per 100 bushels treated. 



466 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

Treating Seed Wheat for Stinking Smut 

"Millions of bushels of wheat," according to U. S. Department of 
Agriculture, "are lost annually because of smut." It is further stated 
that the market discounts for smutty wheat usually range from a few 
cents to 20 cents or more a bushel. The copper-carbonate dust or dry 
treatment is recommended by the Department as "the most satisfac- 
tory treatment known." 1 

One cooperator who manages a community seed house treated 2,821 
bushels of seed wheat with a copper-carbonate dust in the fall of 1927, 
using a machine driven by a 1 -horsepower electric motor. One man 
scooped the wheat from the wagon directly into the hopper of the 
dusting machine, from which it passed into the mixing chamber, and 
from there it was re-elevated into another wagon. 

The capacity of the dusting machine was 40 bushels an hour when 
it was run at 50 revolutions a minute. The energy consumption was 
2.61 kilowatt hours to 100 bushels treated. 



BIGGEST PROBLEM IS TO DEVELOP A "PAY" LOAD 

To obtain a satisfactory answer to the problem of rural electri- 
fication, it must be approached both from the standpoint of the 
farmer and from that of the power company. The important thing 
is for the power companies to provide an energy rate that is practical 
and economical for the farmer, thus encouraging sufficient use to 
justify extending lines. 

Considerations in Cost of Farm. Service 

If a farmer or other isolated customer who cannot be served by 
existing city distribution systems uses only a limited amount of elec- 
tric energy, the cost per unit must necessarily be higher than the 
cost in town, for the cost of getting the power to him is greater. A 
mile of distribution line in town generally serves thirty or forty 
customers, while in the country it serves only three or four. As most 
farmsteads are a quarter of a mile or more apart, a separate trans- 
former must be provided for each, while in town one transformer may 
serve a dozen customers. In addition to the greater investment per 
customer there is in each transformer a continuous loss of energy, 
and this loss in the transformer makes up the greater part of the 
total loss on the line. Furthermore practically the same loss occurs 
regardless of the amount of current used. This is illustrated in Fig. 
28, which is based on meter readings taken at the starting point of 
the experimental line and which therefore give the total amount 
supplied on the line and the total readings of energy as taken on 
the individual farms. Altho these readings were taken for two periods 

'U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Circ. 394, 



1929] 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



467 



Total 



usact 



during which there was a wide difference in the amounts of energy 
used, the actual loss on the line was practically the same for both. 

Large Use Essential for Low Rate 

With the high cost of distributing electric power from a central 
service plant it is evident that a larger use for such power than that of 
the ordinary lighting customer must be developed if the costs of de- 
livery, including losses, are to 
be spread over a large enough 
number of units to justify a 
rate which the farmer can af- 
ford to pay. The analysis 
made of the farmer's power 
problem and the results of 
tests reported in the preceding 
sections of this bulletin show 
that electricity may be put to 
many practical uses on the 
farm. Owing to the diversity 
of such uses it is clear that the 
farmer who uses considerable 
energy should be put in a dif- 
ferent class from the ordinary 
domestic lighting customer in 
town or the ordinary lighting 
or power customer in the 



ZZ2 



SOZ 



mi 

KMHrs. 




Aua. to 
/5Z5-'Z6 



Oct. to. Apr. 
' 



FIG. 28. TOTAL LOSSES OF ENERGY ON EX- 
PERIMENTAL LINE DURING Two 

SIX-MONTHS' PERIODS 
The energy losses in transformers are 
practically constant irrespective of the 
quantity of energy used. On some electric 
distribution lines where only small quanti- 
ties of electricity are used, the total losses 
including line and transformer losses are 
about as great as the total consumption. 



country. Some of the power 
companies recognize this fact 
and are providing a farm rate 
which encourages the farmer 
to find a large enough use for 
electricity in his business to 
enable him to secure it vir- 
tually on a wholesale basis 



rather than on a retail basis. 

That many farmers are willing to pay a considerable sum in 
order to have electricity for lighting their homes is evidenced by the 
large number who have invested in farm lines and who have in- 
stalled unit electric plants primarily for this purpose. By additional 
use, complete electric service is made available at relatively little 
additional cost. The effect of greater use on the unit cost of elec- 
tricity to the ten cooperators during the first six months of 1928 is 
shown in Table 40. These costs are based on the rates then in force. 
The cost per kilowatt hour of energy for the ten customers ranged from 
13.6 cents for those using the least amount to 5.1 cents for those 
using the greatest amount. The monthly energy consumption ranged 
from 42 kilowatt hours to 278 kilowatt hours. 



468 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



TABLE 40. UNIT COST OF ELECTRICITY TO THE TEN COOPEKATORS ON THE EXPERI- 
MENTAL LINE, BASED ON RATES IN FORCE AND AVERAGE MONTHLY 
CONSUMPTION DURING FIRST Six MONTHS OP 1928 



Cooperator 


Average energy 
used monthly 


Average cost 
per month 


Cost per kw. hr. 


I 1 ... 


kw. hrs. 
42 


$ 5.72 


cents 
13 6 


2 


278 


14.29 


5.1 


3 


136 


10.03 


7.4 


4 


178 


11.29 


6.3 


5 


133 


10.00 


7.5 


6 


171 


11.08 


6 5 


7 1 


148 


11.28 


7.6 


8 1 


60 


6 62 


11 


9 


144 


10.27 


7.1 


10 


246 


13.33 


5.4 



'Cooperators 1, 7, and 8 each had an investment of $360 in the line. In order to 
errive at their total expense for electricity, $1.80 was added to the monthly bill of 
aach. This covered interest at the rate of 6 percent annually on the amount.of their 
investment. 

A number of the power companies serving about 75 percent of the 
farming area of the state have adopted a farm rate which is designed 



COOPERATOH. 4 
COOPERATOA. Q 




A. I D 



FIG. 29. EFFECT OF DIFFERENT RATES OFFERED BY DIFFERENT 

POWER COMPANIES 

The average monthly bills of two cooperators on the test 
line were figured according to the rates offered by 10 Illinois 
power companies in May, 1927. According to the lowest rate 
(Ai) the cost of electric power on the farm of Cooperator 4 
would have been $10.15. In this household were five persons. 
Thirty-two kilowatt hours were used for light, 4 for heat, and 
104 for power, a total of 140. Cooperator 8 had a family of 
four and used 256 kilowatt hours: 26 for light, 139 for heat, 
and 91 for power, and the cost under rate Ai was $13.63. 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 469 

to encourage use and is satisfactory for the customer who is in a 
position to use complete electric service. This rate was submitted 
to the farmers on the experimental line, and eight of the ten who 
were using a rather large amount of energy accepted it as a better 
rate than the one under which they were being served. The bar 
designated as A x in Fig. 29 shows the cost of service under this new 
rate in comparison with rates of other companies. 

Some of the principal factors that limit the use of electric power 
in carrying out the many processes of farm production are: (1) 
seasonal use of machinery; (2) varying power requirements; (3) 
difficulty of adapting present farm equipment to electric power; (4) 
present methods used in many farm operations; (5) lack of satisfac- 
tory methods for applying electric power to field operations; (6) cost 
of electrical equipment. In spite of these limitations the ten farmers 
on the test line are using several times as much electric energy each 
month as the average farm customer or the average city lighting 
customer. 

ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF FARM RATES 

From the results secured on Hie experimental line with the ten 
cooperating farmers and from studies of other rates, it is evident 
that the essential features of a satisfactory rate for farm electric 
service can be summed up as follows: 

1. It should be fair and equitable alike to large and small custom- 
ers. 

2. It should be easily understood. 

3. It should encourage the use of electricity. 

4. Provision should be made for financing the building of the line 
by the company, or allowing the customer to finance lines as an op- 
tional plan. 

Flat Rate Penalizes Larger Consumer 

To meet the high fixed costs of extending electricity to farmers, 
some power companies have established a high kilowatt-hour charge 
which applies regardless of the amount of energy used. As a result 
the farmer who uses a large amount of electric energy is penalized 
and the farmer who uses only a little is favored, for once the fixed 
costs are met the cost of supplying additional energy is relatively 
low. Under such a rate, if one farmer were to use twice as much 
energy as his neighbor, his bill would be twice as large, yet the cost 
to the power company for supplying the larger amount would be 
only a little more than for the smaller amount. Such a schedule dis- 
courages many farmers from using electric service for anything but 
lighting. 

A farm rate will pay the power company a proper return on the 
investment when a reasonable amount of service is used by the farm- 



470 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

er, and that will supply all additional energy at a price commen- 
surate with its cost, will encourage the use of electric energy on the 
farms of Illinois. 

Lack of Uniform Rates Cause of Dissatisfaction 

There has been and still is a wide variation in the farm rates of 
different companies as well as in the charges made on the same farm 
for current for different purposes, such as light, heat, and power. The 
farmer cannot understand why he should not have one rate for the 
energy that comes over one set of wires at the same time of day, 
whether it is used for lighting or for several other uses, or why there 
should be so much difference between his monthly energy charge and 
that of another farmer who is served by another company. 

To show the variation in rates charged by different companies, 
the bills for one month for two of the cooperating farmers on the 
experimental line were figured by ten different companies, with the 
result shown in Fig. 29. For 256 kilowatt hours, the amount of elec- 
tricity used by Cooperator 4 would have cost $35.84 if served by 
Company E. If served by Company C, in another part of the state, 
the cost would have been $15.85. If supplied under the new rate, 
which was slightly changed April 1, 1929, the cost would have been 
$13.18 (see Fig. 29, Company Al). Under this rate all the energy is 
supplied thru one meter, the first 150 kilowatt hours costing $10 for 
a 3-kilowatt transformer installation and all additional energy 3 cents 
a kilowatt hour. Under this plan the farmer guarantees to use ten 
dollars' worth of energy monthly and the company finances the line 
up to $450 a customer. 

Financing the Line 

A rate plan under which the building of the line is financed by 
the power company seems advisable if farmers are to be encouraged 
to make larger uses of electric energy. The cost to the average farmer 
for fixtures for his house and for wiring the buildings is $200 to $300. 
If in addition to this he has to invest $400 or $500 in building a 
line, he has little ready money left to invest in equipment; and as 
a result, he is unable to realize the full advantage of central power 
station service, yet the cost of serving him will be nearly as great as 
the cost of furnishing service to the farmer with considerable equip- 
ment. Thus the farmer with little equipment gets less for his money 
and is more likely to become dissatisfied. 

Potential Farm Load Worth Consideration of Power Companies 

Relatively few power companies have developed a rate for farm 
service that takes into consideration the fact that there is a fairly 
large potential use for electricity on the farm. Where .cciricity has 



1929] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 471 

been made available many farmers have made only a limited use of it. 
With recognition of its possible uses and equitable adjustment of rates, 
power companies can greatly extend their business and fanners will be 
enabled to solve many of their labor and living problems. 

APPENDIX 

One Year's Results With Five Unit Electric Plants 1 

The unit electric plant makes it possible for many farms of the 
country to have electricity that cannot be reached economically by 
power lines. Such a plant, however, does not have sufficient capacity 
to supply complete service for power purposes. Its use is limited 
to lighting and to the operating of household appliances and small 
motors. Nevertheless a study of rural electrification would be incom- 
plete without some data on this type of electrical equipment. 

Five Champaign county farmers who were using unit electric 
plants from which to obtain power cooperated with the University 
for one year by keeping records of all fuel and oil used. Meters were 
installed at each farm to determine the actual energy produced each 
month by each of these five plants. 

The equipment operated by electrical energy from the unit plants 
located on these five farms was as follows: 

3 washing machines 

3 separators 

3 soft-water pumping systems 

3 radios 

1 deep-well pumping system 

1 refrigerator 

1 vacuum cleaner 

1 churn 

2 motors of % horsepower 

Eleven to 20 lights were used in each of these five farm houses, 
or an average of 15 per house. The number of lights in outbuildings 
was not recorded, but there were not over 6 to 8 to a farm. 

The yearly and monthly energy consumption for each of the five 
farms are given in Table 41. 

On four of the farms the average energy consumption was 16.9 
kilowatt hours and on the fifth farm 67.7 kilowatt hours. This higher 
consumption was due largely to the use of an electric refrigerator 
and a deep-well pump operated by an electric motor. The energy 
required for refrigeration made up 62.5 percent of the total amount 
used on the fifth farm, and the energy required for pumping water 
ranged from 1.6 to 33.4 percent of the total amount used on all farms, 
as determined by individual meters. 

'Data secured by R. C. Kelleher, formerly First Assistant in Farm Me- 
chanics. 



472 



BULLETIN No. 332 



[June, 



TABLE 41. YEARLY AND MONTHLY CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY FROM 
FIVE UNIT ELECTRIC PLANTS l 



Cooperator 


Energy used 
per year 1 


Energy used 
per month 


1. . 


kw. hrs. 
143 


kw. hrs. 
11.90 


2 


165 


13.75 


3 


189 


15.75 


4 


318 


26.50 


Average for four farms. 
5 


203 

813 2 


16.90 
67. 70 2 



Computed from records extending over approximately eleven months. 

2 Farm 5 used a refrigerator and also a motor on a deep-well pump. This raised 
the yearly energy consumption considerably above the other four farms, where such 
appliances were not used. 

Four of these unit plants were operating on kerosene. They used 
an average of 43.2 gallons of kerosene and 2.45 gallons of lubricating 
oil per 100 kilowatt hours generated. With kerosene at 12 cents a 
gallon and oil at 66 cents, the cost of kerosene and oil amounted to 
6.8 cents a kilowatt hour. 



TABLE 42. COMPUTED YEARLY COST OF OPERATION, AND THE UNIT COST PER 

KILOWATT HOUR GENERATED BY UNIT ELECTRIC PLANTS OF DIFFERENT 

ASSUMED ENERGY OUTPUTS, 1925-26 



Energy output (kw. hrs.) 
Monthly . . . 


10 


20 


30 


50 


70 


100 


Yearly 


120 


240 


360 


600 


840 


1 200 
















Assumed life of engine and 
generator, years 


17 


14 


9.5 


8 


7 


6 


Assumed life of battery, 
years 


7.5 


6.5 


5.25 


4.5 


4 


3.5 


Interest, $520 at 6 percent. . 
Cost of kerosene and oil at 
6.8 cents a kw. hr 
Cost of repairs 


$31 .20 

8.15 
1.75 


$31 .20 

16.30 
2.50 


$31.20 

24.45 
3.75 


$31.20 

40.80 
5.00 


$31.20 

57.00 
6.00 


$31.20 

81.50 
7.00 


Cost of labor for making 
repairs 


1.75 


2.50 


3.75 


5.00 


6.00 


7.00 


Depreciation on engine and 
generator, value S320 1 . . . 
Depreciation on battery, 
value $200* 


11.65 
21.85 


15.20 
26.00 


25.90 
33.50 


32.40 
40.00 


38.20 
45.80 


45.90 
52.90 
















Total annual cost 

Cost of energy per kilowatt 
hour 


$76.35 
$ .64 


$93.70 
$ .39 


$122.55 
$ .34 


$154.40 
$ .26 


$184.20 
$ .22 


$225.90 
$ .19 



depreciation = (i _i_ r \ n _ i in which c = cost of renewal; r = rate of interest; 

and n = life of plant in year. As a basis for determining the depreciation, the life 
of the equipment was arbitrarily assumed. Operating costs are based on actual costs 
on farm-operated machines. 



1929] 



ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 



473 



The plant operating on gasoline used 55 gallons of gasoline and 
13 gallons of oil to 100 kilowatt hours. With gasoline at 18.6 cents 
a gallon and oil at 89.5 cents, the cost of gasoline and oil was 21.9 
cents a kilowatt hour. This plant was in poor mechanical condition 
and was leaking oil. 

Table 42 shows the computed annual expense and cost of energy 
per kilowatt hour for farm electric plants having different monthly 
outputs of energy. Table 43 shows a comparison between the com- 
puted cost of energy per kilowatt hour from 32-volt farm electric 
plants and energy cost to farmers on the experimental line. 

TABLE 43. COMPARISON OF COST OF ENERGY OBTAINED FROM FARM ELECTRIC 

PLANTS AND COST FROM CENTRAL STATION PLANT BASED ON RATE 

IN EFFECT IN A LARGE PORTION OF ILLINOIS IN 1929 

(Cents per kilowatt hour) 



Energy used per month 


Cost from 32-volt 
farm plant 
(computed in Table 42) 


Cost from central 
station plant 1 


kw. hrs. 
10 . .... 


cents 
64 


cents 
50 


20 


39 


25 


30 


34 


17 


50 


26 


13 


70 


22 


11 


100 


19 


10 


150 




6 66 


250. ... . . 




5 20 


350 




4.57 



x Based on optional power and light rate for amounts less than 100 kilowatt hours 
per month for a seven-room house where farmer invests in the line: First 16 kilowatt 
hours at 12 cents net; next 32 kilowatt hours at 8 cents net, and all over at 5 cents 
.net. Minimum charge of $3 per month and no motor larger than 1 horsepower can 
be used. A $2 interest charge per month based on a $400 line investment was allowed. 
When company invests in the line the farmer pays $10 for the first 150 kilowatt hours 
and 3 cents a kilowatt hour for additional energy which may be used for lighting, 
heating, and power service. In this table the energy costs for amounts of energy of 
100 kilowatt hours and more are calculated on the $10 rate. 

On the basis of these figures the energy cost per kilowatt hour 
for energy delivered from a unit electric plant is higher than for 
energy delivered by a central service station. If central station power 
can be obtained at a reasonable cost, it undoubtedly is better to choose 
it than to install a unit electric plant since greater power and heat 
service can be provided at less expense. The unit plant, however, can 
render great service where central station service is not available, 
as it provides the power for most of the conveniences found in the 
city home. 

Definition of Electrical Terms 

Energy is the capacity for doing work. Any body or medium which is of 
itself capable of doing work is said to possess energy. There is a definite nu- 



474 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

merical relation between different sorts of energy. In electrical units, it is ex- 
pressed in watt hours or kilowatt hours. 

Power is the rate of doing work. The customary unit is the watt and the 
horsepower. 

Ampere is the rate of flow of electricity. It is comparable to the amount 
of water flowing thru a pipe at a given time. 

Volt is the unit of electrical pressure. It may be likened to the pressure 
in a water pipe. The greater the pressure or voltage with the same flow of 
electricity, the greater the energy. 

Watt is the electrical unit of power. It is equal to the electrical pressure 
in volts multiplied by current in amperes. 

1 Kilowatt is equal to 1,000 watts. A kilowatt hour is equivalent to the use 
of 1,000 watts for one hour. It is the common unit used in measuring elec- 
trical energy. 

1 horsepower is the power required to raise 33,000 pounds one foot in 
one minute, which is approximately equivalent to the work performed by one 
horse. 

1 horsepower = 746 watts (approximately % kilowatt) 

1 kilowatt = 1% horsepower 

Work Performed by One Kilowatt Hour 

One kilowatt hour will operate the following equipment approxi- 
mately the length of time indicated: 

Hours 

Vacuum sweeper ... . . 6% 

Hand iron 1% 

Curling iron 47^ 

Table stove 2 

Toaster 1% 

Grill 2% 

Percolator 2% 

Heating pad 15^4 

Dish washer 4 

Battery charger 10 

Fan 22% 

Light bulb (50-watt) 20 

% horsepower motor 4 

Sewing machine 13 

Energy Consumption for Various Farm and Home Operations as 
Determined by State Experiment Stations and Other Agencies 

Apple Grading. Capacity of the machine tested, 25 boxes per hour; oper- 
ated by %-hp. motor. Energy requirements for each 100 bu. of apples graded, 
.5 to 1.5 kw. hrs., or average of 1 kw. hr. Machine is justified if grower has 
4,000 to 6,000 bu. apples to be graded. (Ind. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 134 and 
C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 104) 1 

Battery Charging for Radio. Kw. hr. consumption per month dependent 
on type of radio and on amount of time used. Average per month noted was 
7.78 kw. hrs. (Kans. Engin. Exp. Sta. Bui. 21, p. 25) 

'Data in this reference were obtained largely from preliminary reports of 
state agricultural experiment stations published by National Committee on Re- 
lation of Electricity to Agriculture. 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 475 

Bone Grinding. Grinder with capacity of 100 to 150 Ibs. per hour operated 
by 5-hp. motor used 1.1 kw. hrs. per 100 Ibs. bone ground. (C.R.EA. Bui., Vol. 
4, No. 1, p. 81) 

Bottle Washing. Single brush washer with %-hp. motor used 22 kw. hra. 
per month when 300 bottles were washed each day. (N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. 
Bui. 228, p. 40) 

Brooding. Black heat type brooder averaging 665 chicks used .47 kw. hr. 
per chick during period of 40 days. Radiant type brooder of practically same 
capacity averaged 1.55 kw. hra. per chick during period of 50 days. (Cal. Agr. 
Exp. Sta. Bui. 441, p. 39) 

Bulb Cooking. Machine with capacity of 150 Ibs. bulbs driven by %-hp. 
motor and with connected load, including heating element and motor, of 2,186 
watts used 2 kw. hrs. for each 100 Ibs. bulbs cooked. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 
4, No. 1, p. 112) 

Bulb Grading. Bulb grader operated by }-hp. motor graded 177 Ibs. bulbs 
in &/2 minutes. Power required was negligible. (C.R.EA. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, 
p. HI) 

Butter Making. Churn with M-hp. motor used .99 kw. hrs. to churn 100 
Ibs. butter. (P. 426, this bulletin) 

Clothes Washing. Operation required 1.69 kw. hrs. per month for average 
family of 4.4 persons; type of machine not stated (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, 
No. 1, page 13). With cylinder washer 3.09 kw. hrs. per month were required 
for family of 5.34 persons; with single-tub dolly-type washer 2% kw. hrs. per 
month for family of 4, and with double-tub dolly 1.31 kw. hrs. (Kans. Engin. 
Exp. Sta. Bui. 21, p. 23) 

Concrete Mixing, Concrete mixer with }-hp. motor used .4 to .5 kw. 
hr. to mix 1 cu. yd. of concrete. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 114) 

Cooking. Average of 32.5 kw. hrs. per person per month were used in 
cooking with electric range. Total energy per month for average-sized family 
of 5.9 persons was '191.1 kw. hrs. (P. 416, this bulletin) 

Corn Husking and Shredding. An 8-roll husker-shredder with 10-hp. 
motor used 20 kw. hrs. to husk 100 bu. and shred stalks. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 
4, No. 1, p. 88) 

Corn Shelling. Hand-feed sheller with ^hp. motor used 8 kw. hrs. for 
each 100 bu. corn shelled. Two-hole power sheller with %-hp. motor used 2 
kw. hrs. per 100 bu. shelled. (C.R.E.A. Bui, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 87) 

Cream Separating. Separator operated by %-hp. motor used .047 kw. 
hrs. to separate 100 Ibs. milk, using average energy consumption of 1.31 kw. 
hrs. per month. (P. 451, this bulletin) 

Dairy Sterilization. A 4-can sterilizer with connected load of 3,000 watta 
required 3.78 kw. hrs. for one sterilization of equipment used with a 22-cow 
herd. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 48) 

Dish Washing. Dish washer with %-hp. motor used average of 22 kw. 
hrs. energy per month. (P. 426, this bulletin) 

Ensilage Cutting. Cutter with 15-hp. motor used 1.72 kw. hrs. per ton 
of ensilage cut (see p. 436, this bulletin). A 13-inch cutter with 5-hp. motor 
used .615 kw. hr. per ton when corn was fed into cutter in bundles. Same cutter 
with 5-hp. motor used .85 kw. hr. per ton when corn was fed in loose form. 
Rate of feeding during second test was about one-half the first. ("Report on 
Silo Filling With a Five-Horsepower Motor," F. L. Fairbanks, Cornell Uni- 
versity) 



476 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

Feed Cutting (Green). Root cutter operated by 1-hp. motor used 2 kw. 
hrs. per 1,000 Ibs. of roots cut. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 81) 

Feed Grinding. An 8-inch burr mill with 20-hp. motor used average of 
339 kw. hr. per 100 pounds shelled corn when ground medium-fine. Average of 
.772 kw. hr. was required per 100 Ibs. of oats when ground medium-fine. A 
6-inch burr mill with 5-hp. motor used average of .449 to .662 kw. hr. per 100 
Ibs. of sappy ear corn when corn was ground medium-fine. One hundred Ibs. of 
wheat ground fine used .410 kw. hr.; 100 Ibs. of soybeans ground medium- 
fine, .720 kw. hr.; and 100 Ibs. of shelled corn ground fine, .440 to .660 kw. hr. (see 
p. 443, this bulletin). A 6-inch burr mill with 1-hp. motor used 574 kw. hr. 
per 100 Ibs. of shelled corn when corn was ground medium-fine. (Iowa C.R.E.A. 
Bui., Jan. 6, 1926) 

Fly Control. A screen door fly electrocutor with connected load of 8 
watts used 5 to 13 kw. hrs. per month. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 53) 

Food Mixing. Machine operated by Mo-hp. motor required .5 to 1.2 kw. hrs. 
per month for all operations. (P. 419, this bulletin) 

Grain Elevating. Drag elevators operated by 5-hp. portable motors used 
average of .423 kw. hr. to elevate 1,000 bu. of corn to height of 1 foot. (P. 432, 
this bulletin) 

Grain Threshing. A 22" x 36" threshing machine operated by 3 motors 
10-hp., 3-hp., and 1^-hp. used 11.1 kw. hrs. per 100 bu. of oats threshed and 
26.5 kw. hrs. per 100 bu. of wheat threshed. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, 
p. 117) 

Hay Baling. Baler operated by 5-hp. motor used 1.62 kw. hrs. per ton of 
hay baled. Bales averaged 75 Ibs. each. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 90) 

Hay Chaffing. Ensilage cutter with 30-hp. motor used 3.34 kw. hrs. to chaff 
1 ton of alfalfa hay and 5.7 kw. hrs. to chaff 1 ton of soybean hay. (Pp. 438 
and 441, this bulletin) 

Hay Grinding. An 8-inch burr mill equipped with cutter head and 20-hp. 
motor used 18.6 kw. hrs. to grind 1 ton of alfalfa hay and 29.2 kw. hrs. to grind 
1 ton of soybean hay. (Pp. 438 and 440, this bulletin) 

Hay Hoisting. Hoist operated by 3-hp. motor required .32 kw. hr. per 
ton of hay. Another hoist operated by 5-hp. motor required .48 kw. hr. per 
ton of hay hoisted to 45 feet. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 89) 

Hot-Bed Heating. A hot bed 6' x 3' in size had a connected load of 150 
watts. Sixty-three kw. hrs. were required to heat hot bed for periods of 7 
weeks, with average outside temperature of 40 F. (Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 
219, p. 11) 

Incubation. Three incubators with capacity of 150 eggs and less used 
average of 179 kw. hrs. for each 1,000 eggs; 7 with 151 to 300 egg capacity used . 
average of 134 kw. hrs.; 3 with capacity of 301 to 600 eggs averaged 123 kw. 
hrs.; 5 with 1,000 to 1,500 egg capacity, 145 kw. hrs. One 6000-egg incubator 
used 32 kw. hrs. per 1,000 eggs incubated, and three with 13,000 to 15,000 egg 
capacity used average of 225 kw. hrs. (C.RJE.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 73) 

Ironing by Hand. Energy requirement for family averaging 425 persons 
was 5.42 kw. hrs. per month. Average kw. hr. consumption per person per 
month was 1.27 (Kans. Engin. Exp. Sta. Bui. 21). Additional data on hand 
and machine ironing are given on p. 412, this bulletin). 

Kitchen Ventilation. Kitchen ventilating fan required less than 10 kw. 
hrs. per month. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 13) 

Lighting Barn. Three barns with average of 19 outlets per barn used 
7.9 kw. hrs. per barn per month. (N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 228, p. 38) 



1929] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 477 

Lighting House. Average monthly energy consumption per house with 
average of 39 outlets each, 7 families, was 34.6 kw. hrs. (N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. 
Bui. 228, p. 32) 

Lighting Poultry House. Energy requirement from Nov. 15 to Mar. 31 
was 3 to 5 kw. hrs. per month for 100 birds. (N. Y. Cornell Agr. Exp. Sta. 
Exten. Bui. 90) 

Milking. Pipe-line machine with %-hp. motor used 27.4 kw. hrs. per month 
per herd of 10 cows. (P. 447, this bulletin) 

Oats Hulling. Machine with 5-hp. motor used 9.17 to 172 kw. hrs. for each 
100 bu. of oats hulled. (P. 446, this bulletin) 

Oats Sprouting. Connected load for homemade tray-type oat sprouter 
was 440 watts. To sprout 10 pounds of dry oats daily required 158.4 kw. hrs. 
per month. Connected load was increased to 880 watts during cold weather; 
amount of energy used would be increased in approximately same proportion. 
(N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 228, p. 43) 

Orchard Spraying. Stationary spray units with motors ranging in size 
from 1% to 10 hp. used average of 47.4 kw. hrs. per acre for average of 7% 
sprays per year. Area sprayed per unit ranged from 4 to 35 acres. (Wash. Agr. 
Exp. Sta. Bui. 212, p. 41) 

Paint Spraying. Machine operated by 1%-hp. motor required average of 
.72 kw. hr. for each 100 square feet of surface painted. This test was on an 
old barn which was painted twice. (P. 455, this bulletin) 

Potato Grading. Grader with capacity of 350 bu. per hour operated by 
%-hp. motor required 1 kw. hr. to grade 700 bu. Machine saved labor of one 
man. (Giant Power Survey of Pennsylvania, February, 1925) 

Refrigeration (Household). Average kw. hr. consumption per refrigerator 
for 47 refrigerators per month on yearly basis was 46 kw. hrs. Average size of 
box was 10.9 cu. ft. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 16). For 10 refrigerators 
in Illinois average monthly energy requirement was 41.9 kw. hrs. (see p. 420, 
this bulletin) 

Refrigeration (Milk). Monthly energy requirement for entire year's oper- 
ation ranged from 26.4 to 48.3 kw. hrs. per 100 quarts of milk stored daily. 
(N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 233, p. 20) 

Seed Germinating. With 1,600-ear capacity germinator, 800-watt con- 
nected load, 34.4 kw. hrs. were required to operate germinator thru one germi- 
nating period. (P. 462, this bulletin) 

Seed Grading and Cleaning. With grader operated by 1-hp. motor, 4 kw. 
hrs. were required per 1,000 bushels of grain graded and cleaned. (C.R.E.A. 
Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 91) 

Sheep Shearing. A 13-tooth clipper operated by ^-h.p. motor used 25 
kw. hrs. for each 100 sheep sheared. Time required for one sheep was 4.34 
minutes. (C.R.EA. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 113) 

Trucking. Truck equipped with 42-cell battery, driven average of 14% 
miles a day, used 87.5 kw. hrs. for each 100 miles, or 391 kw. hrs. per month. 
(C.R.EA. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 71) 

Water Heating. A 15-gallon thermos-bottle heater with 3000-watt con- 
nected load used 293.6 kw. hrs. per 1,000 gallons of water heated. (P. 408, this 
bulletin) 

Water Pumping. Average energy requirement to pump water from cistern 
reported by five states as 151 kw. hrs. per month. Average energy requirement 
per month per family for domestic water supply for 11 families, water pumped 



4^8 BULLETIN No. 332 [June, 

from a depth of leas than 25 feet, was 4.8 kw. hrs. Average energy requirement 
per month per farm for 16 farms for farm water supply from deep wells was 
32 kw. hrs. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 34) 

Wood Sawing. Buzz saw with 3-hp. motor used 1.1 kw. hrs. to saw cord 
of wood into 18-inch lengths. Same outfit used 2.4 kw. hrs. to saw cord of wood 
in 12-inch lengths. (C.R.E.A. Bui., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 114) 



SUMMARY 

1. The distribution of electric power in Illinois has reached a point 
where many areas remote from the centers of population have electric 
service available. 

2. This study differed from similar projects in which individual 
items of equipment were studied, in that a number of pieces of equip- 
ment were installed on each farm, and the use, the value to the farmer, 
and the energy requirement were determined in relation to other types 
of equipment on the same farm. 

3. The cost of wiring and fixtures, and the cost of electrically oper- 
ated equipment incident to the use of electric service are two factors 
which limit its use on the farm. 

4. The farm home with its need for better lights, a convenient 
source of heat for cooking, water supply under pressure, and power 
for many other appliances offers a wide field for the application of 
electricity. 

5. Those farms on the experimental line making the greatest use of 
electricity use more in the home than in production work. The kitchen 
range and the household refrigerator are the pieces of equipment con- 
suming the most electricity. 

6. The use of electrically operated household equipment results in 
a saving of time for the housewife, and the work in the home is made 
easier. 

7. The type of farm and the specific enterprises carried out on the 
farm determine the applications and the extent to which electric serv- 
ice can be used in production work. 

8. The fact that approximately 50 percent of the labor of the farm 
is spent about the farmstead suggests the possibilities of the use of 
electricity for light and power to make this labor more effective (see 
Table 11, page 400). 

9. The results of tests demonstrate that electricity is an economical 
and practical form of energy for operating milking machines, cream 
separators, seed germinators, feed grinders, ensilage cutters, incubators, 
brooders, pumps, and portable motors for operating grain elevators, 
wood saws, feed mills, and other power-driven equipment on the farm. 

10. The ten cooperating farm customers on the experimental line 
are using about five times as much electric energy as the average city 
lighting customer. 



1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 479 

11. Since there are few customers to a square mile in the general 
farming area and the cost of distribution is high, the power companies 
must furnish electric energy at a rate that will make it profitable for 
the farmers to use it in large quantities. 

12. The results of this study indicate that many farmers can make 
sufficient economic use of electric energy to justify power companies 
in building farm lines. 

13. The rate first tried on the experimental line, making it possible 
for the farmer to get complete service without financing the line, has 
been put into effect in at least 75 percent of the area of the state in 
which electric energy is now available. 

14. The unit electric plant furnishes sufficient energy for lighting 
and for operating small motors and small appliances. The cost of 
energy from the unit plant is greater than from the central station 
plant when served under existing rates in effect on the experimental 
line (see page 473). 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA