THE INFLUENCE OF FORAGE CONSERVATION METHODS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF WED LOT SYSTEMS FQR BEEF AND DAIRY CATTLE Thesis *0? ”we Dogma. of M. S. MECH'GAN STATE UNIVERSITY David J. B. Calveriey 1963 T733592??? This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE INFLUENCE OF FORAGE CONSERVATION METHODS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF FEED LOT SYSTEMS FOR BEEF AND DAIRY CATTLE presented by David J. B. Calverley has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. degree inAELifllLDral Mechanics j #W Major professor Date September 5, 1963 0-169 LIBRA R Y Michigan State 5 '3 University f ABSTRACT THE INFLUENCE or FORAGE COMEWATION mops ON THE Mom OF 1“. LOT srs'mss FOR 13m AND DAIRY cam By David J. B. Calverley Mechanization can be credited'with effecting a significant improvement in the working conditiOns of present day farms by reducing physical effort and drudgery, as well as by aiding a more effective employment effort. Livestock production has not kept pace with the efficiency in crOp production. The reasons frequently cited are the difficulties of mechanization among present buildings and penmanent fixtures of a farmstead. The pattern of farm buildings today shows evidence of an individualistic approach to farmstead planning and devel- opment. The purpose of this work was to study forage conservation.methods and to develOp forage storage and feeding systeMs for beef and dairy cows. .A review of forage harvesting techniques showed that there are many improvements to be made in current practices which will lead to the preservation of more and better quality forages. The conservation and David J. B. Calverley ii mechanical handling problems of hay are not yet solved and it was found many farmers are now making little or no dry hay and feed most forage as silage. A feed lot design was shown to include 3 functional components: 1. Feed storage; 2. Feeding facility; 3. Livestock area. Feed storage includes units for forage, feed grains and the preparation and blending of the food items. The feeding facility is the method and manner in which food is presented to the livestock. The livestock area includes the lot area, shelter or loafing barn and other essential physical requirements. Methods of organizing and integrating these components, in their varied forms, were examined and a procedure was developed for analyzing forage storage and feeding systems. Design requirements of such systems were stated and discussed, as well as other restrictions on the design of feed lots imposed by the behavioral characteristics of the livestock and their physical requirements. Feed lot system layouts were presented with considerations for the future, but in the main, intended for use with equipment and machin- ery currently available. Essential qualities of each system were; the capability of expansion; development in discrete steps and mechanization in stages. It was shown how the plans should be modified to obtain most advantages from local conditions. W 31/4 W THE INFLUENCE OF FORAGE CONSERVATION MEI'HOIB ON THE DEVELOIMENT OI? FEED LOT SYSTEMS FOR BEEF AND DAIRY CATTLE David J. B. Calverley ATHESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF“ SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Engineering 1963 ACIO‘IWIEDGWTS The author sincerely appreciates the assistance of all those“ who have aided in this study. He is especially appreciative, however, of the guidance and encouragement afforded by his major professor Doctor Fred H. Buelow, of the Agricultural Engineering Department, during this graduate program. To other members of the Agricultural Engineering Department, Doctor C. W. Hall, a member of the guidance committee, Professor D. Wiant and Mr. R. L. Maddex, the author expresses his deep gratitude for their time, interest and constructive suggestions. Doctor J. M. Stapleton of the Statistics Department was a member of the guidance committee. Doctor D. Hillman of the Dairy Department and Mr. C. R. Hoglund of the Agricultural Economics Department made helpful comments during various stages of this study. The author is also grate- ful to the manufacturers and distributors of feed lot equipment, farmers and feed lot operators for the time they so willingly gave, the may authors of pamphlets, bulletins and research papers who so kindly and freely provided reprints» and copies of their writings. The author would also like to exPress his sincere appreciation to Mr. J. H. Anderson and Mr. H. J. Hine of the National Agricultural Advisory Service of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who suggested this study be undertaken and were instrumental in obtaining leave of absence from official duties. The W. K. Kellogg Foundation generously awarded a Fellowship which provided financial support for the whole graduate program. The author is deeply grateful to his wife and two sons for their patience, encouragement and support which made the completion of this study possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I 0 mowCTION O 0 O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 1 II 0 ONECTIVE o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 6 III 0 mm C O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 7 IV. REVIEW OF LITERATURE A. ‘Measurement of forage quality . . . . . . . . . 9 B I Bay 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O n C. Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 D. High moisture content corn and grains . . . . . . 39 E. Livestock physical requirements . . . . . . . . #2 V. MATERIALS HANDLING SYSTEM DESIGN . A. General considerations . . . . . . . . . . . #9 B. System design analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 57 v1. Dnvmommr CF SYSTEM LAYOUTS VII. PRESENTATION OF FEED LOT LAYOUTS . . . . . . . . . 71 A. Vertical silo systems . . . . . . . . . . . 7h B. HOrizontal silo systems . . . . . . . . . . . 92 C. Hay systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 IX. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . 121 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . 123 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . facing . 136 iii LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. Parcent losses in hay making based on nutrients in the fresh crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2. Ebtimate of minimum.dry matter losses in forage stored as silage at different moisture levels . . . . 3l 3. Rations for baby beef production to put on 2 lb live weight increase per day from 560 lb to 1060 lb body weight using wilted alfalfa hay at 36$ d.m~ and ground ear corn at 66% d.m, . . . . . . Rh h. Suggested feeds and rations fed during feeding trials compared on their d.ms equivalent to ‘wilted alfalfa silage at 6S$:m.c. . . . . . . . . 46 5. ,Suggested.minimum.feed lot areas and feed bunk lengths,'derived from'various sources, on a per anhmal basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' #8 iv FIGURE 1. 2. LIST OF FIGURES Methods of storing and feeding forage . . . . . . . Feed lot layout with vertical silo suitable for lOO'beef animals, showing essential requirements of feedstore, feeding facility and livestock area . . . . . . 3a. Feed lot layout with vertical silos. Extension of a 3b. h. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. single lot unit to 3 separate lots . . . . . . . Feed lot layout with vertical silos. Alternative arrangements of silos for extension of single lot to multiple units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feed lot with vertical silos. A unit layout for beef or dairy cattle with silos and shelter at north of area . Feed lot layout with vertical silos, circular arrange- ment of feeding and cattle movement for beef and dairy cows 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 9 Feed grain and forage storage layout for use with forage wagons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feed lot units with fence line bunk feeding . . . . . Multiple feed lot units for fence line bunk feeding . . Horizontal silo. .Mechanized feeding in conveyor feed bunks using trough filled by tractor scoop . . . . . lOa.Horizontal silo. self feed layout, with silo covered and inside lot. Hay and straw storage on top of silage . lOb.HOrizontal silos. Self feed layout of 2 lots . ll. 12. HOrizontal silo. Temporary self feed surface silo built between two lots for later conversion to lot with conveyor bunk feeders. . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal silo. Temporary self feed silo built in two adjacent lots. . . . . . . . . . . . . V Page 73 75 78 83 85 9O 90 9h 98 98 100 100 . LIST OF FIGURES - Continued FIGURE 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17a. 17b. 18a. 18b. 19. 20. Horizontal silo. Temporary self feed layout for 3 lots feeding from silo external to the lots . Horizontal silo. Self feeding layout for dairy feed 0 O O O O O 0 O I O O O O O O 0 Horizontal silo. Self feeding silo for large imp proved lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practical systems of storing and feeding hay . . Chopped hay. AA suggested layout of conditioning and storage unit for use in conjunction with conveyor bunk feeders . . . . . . . . . . Wafered hay. A suggested layout of storage struc- tures with silos and feed grain unit for feeding in CODVeyor'bunks . . . . . . . . . . . ”Easy Feed” hay. Baled hay stored within livestock shelter fed into fixed feed bunks . . . . . Self feed hay stored in livestock shelter . Self feed hay'barn in layout for dairy herd . Self feed hay barns in feed lots with fence line fe e ding .bunks O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 vi Page 102 103 103 107 109 109 110 110 112 11k I. INTRODUCTION Throughout the years the role of a husbandman has grown and changed as the life around him.has become more complicated and civiliza= tion.more SOphisticated. At first his preoccupation was to provide food and clothing for his family and dependents, then he needed to produce more and more to feed those of his neighbors who provided him.and others with a special service, until today in at least one of the more industri- alized countries (U.K.) less than hfi of the nations'wage earners are actually employed in producing food. This is not to say that the food producers have necessarily become more important; on the contrary the status of food producers the world over has been amongst the lowest offered by the dependent society. In the long run the competition from industry has given force to the need for improving the standing of farmers. The "way of life" farming offered as a career or livelihood was not a sufficient attraction to hold those who had alternative opportunities. A greater degree of equality with industry was required, in conditions of work, leisure, opportunities and personal income. It is a sad reflection on the degree to which this equality has been reached that in the same week the average income in the United States was officially estimated at over $100 per week, Higbee (1963) stated that the income of farm.labor was on average only 84¢ per hour. Nevertheless improvements have been.made and although much of this has resulted from a combination of improved technology and heavy capital investment, mechanization can be credited with effecting a significant improvement in working conditions by reducing or removing much of the physical effort and drudgery associated with crop production as well as a more effective employment of effort. Thus the total man hour requirements in agriculture in the United States have decreased from 22.5 million in 1910 to about in million in 1960 (F.E.R.D. 1957). Many authorities are now satisfied that arable mechanization has achieved a satisfactory level and that further efforts in this field should be directed more specifically towards work simplification and cost reduc~ tion than greater outputs in shorter time. Livestock production efficiency however, has not kept pace with the efficiency in crop production. Indeed the publicity accorded to general farm mechanization camouflages the fact that few livestock farmers are mechanized at all. “Many of the machines which will form the backbone of the livestock industry are not yet numerous enough to be counted by the census taker." (Van.Arsdall 1961). For example Brodell and Phillips (1957) estimated that in 1955, 73 million tons of silage was produced on over 600,000 farms. The great proportion of this was field chopped with flail harvesters and about 3/h (over 51.million tons) ‘was stored in upright silos, but only hfi (less than 3 million tons) was removed by mechanical unloaders. Before world'war I feeding and caring for livestock accounted for less than 30% of the work done on farms, by 1955 the labor for livestock had increased to #01 of the total. Accorda ing to Seferovich (1958) only in the production of milk, broilers and eggs was there any significant breakthrough in the technological barrier in livestock production at this date. Over the period l9h5 - 1958 the total production per'man hour increased 12h$ or 6.h$ compounded annually, the increase in livestock products per man hour was 3.6% annually, but the comparative increase in meat animals amounted to only 1i annually. (Mason 1961). This disproportionate improvement in productivity identifies the need for a careful study of farmstead operations where the feeding and caring for livestock are centered. However, more than today's comparisons, the challenges of the future press on the husbandman. .Mason (1961) said that to maintain the present growth rate of agricultural productivity, the equivalent of some 1.8 million full time workers will need to be moved off United States' farms before 1975, of which 0.8 million.must come from livestock enter- prises. The suggested rate at which labor will be removed during the remainder of this decade is 6h,000 man years per'year. Ferris and Hoglund (1962) calculated that over this same period the per capita consumption of meat will be h3$ greater than in 1962. As per capita incomes increase consumers will show a particular preference for steaks and roasts, putting beef cows high in the priority for anticipated expansion. The reasons for laggardness in livestock production efficiency are frequently cited as being due to the difficulties of mechanization among the present buildings and permanent fixtures of a farmstead. These are often telling, and sometimes unpaid for, reminders of condi- tions decades ago. The pattern of farm building even today shows evidence of an individualistic approach to farmstead planning and devel- opment and the lack of appreciation that the farmstead is the location of all post harvest operations. This includes appreciating its hmpor— tance as a processing center where the arable production of the farm.is stored, processed and converted into meat, milk, eggs and otherwmarketable commodities. Early attempts at livestock mechanization were concerned ‘with unit load movements and the substitution of mechanical power for human. Only recently has mechanization been associated with what the industrialist calls ”flow process prOblems" and the natural integration of individual components into a system of processes or production. Materials handling per so has been lauded for so long in the popular press as the general panacea of all production prdblems that many young farmers have been indoctrinated so as to believe that a high level of mechanization with augers, elevators, forage boxes and tractors is the quintessence of livestock production. However, the handling of materials needs implementing to increase labor productivity, integrating into a system, and capitalizing to give the best return of all the other possible alternatives. It must be considered in relation to the buildings and fixed equipment with which it is to be associated. In the recent past the long life and permanence of farm buildings relative to techno- logical change has been accepted as part of the price of progress, and forced compromises between ideal requirements and the need for general utility. New structures have been continually added to old patterns, extending the heterogeneity of the farmstead and preventing the adoption of standard techniques. At some point in this cycle a break has to be made to prevent the self perpetuation of a systemless expansion. The tools of any process or production need to be considered in relation to that operation only, and utilized to give the optimum.return in capital investment, resource availability and managerial capability. we have seen this concept practiced in broiler and egg production, it is being applied in the production of pig meat, it needs extending to all farm- stead operations. This study is concerned in part with the systems for the produc- tion of red meat and milk from the arable resources of the farms It purports to show that sufficient data are available for the design of production systems for these two commodities to meet the conditions outlined above, and to present a number of schemes of a standardized design to cater for the more commonly found farm.situations. It is also suggested how these schemes may be modified to meet local or personal requirementS'without essentially changing the standard system of machin- ery, labor and other resource use. II. OBJECTIVES The general purpose of this study is to examine the influence of forage conservation methods on the development of feed lot systems for beef and dairy cattle. Specifically the Objectives are: 1. To evaluate systems of forage conservation in respect to efficiency, mechanization and adaptability to systemization. 2. To determine present and likely trends in forage use. 3. To design alternative feed lot systems for different methods of forage conservation. h. To show how standard feed lot systems may be modified to meet local conditions. III. METHOD OF PROCEDURE The engineer is at the present time faced with the responsibili- ties of selecting equipment and methods and organizing them into effi- cient materials handling systems. This study is concerned with the storage of forage, including hay, corn silage, high moisture corn and small grains, the pre-storage treatment of the material required by each method of storage, the effects that this method of storage has on the manner in which forage is fed to livestock and the optimum.orienta- tion of the machinery, equipment and other structures that are associated with the loose housing of beef and dairy cows. The individual stages in the procedure of the study were: 1. A review was made of the investigations into methods of forage conservation and of the methods and techniques recommended to improve the efficiency of each. .A great deal of this informa- tion was contained in pOpular articles in weekly and monthly Journals, other information was found in scientific papers, reports, and extension bulletins. Generally greater credence ‘was given to the reports of original work. In reports of studies, where possible,the original source of data was found and the original reference is given. In assessing the value of p0pular writings it is noted that this represents a more timely influence on establishing trends in farming practices than do the writings in.more scientific Journals. Accounts of new practices were considered important in determining likely 7 trends in feeding habits and conservation requirements. livestock physical requirements were established from a study of published recommendations, and in discussion with.Agricultural Extension Service personnel. Visits were made to two distributors in.Michigan of forage storage and feeding components for information on the range of machinery and equipment available. Field visits were made to some 20 farms in the company of machinery dealers, extension personnel and as private visits, to study existing farm layouts . A review was made of published reports on.materials handling systems analysis to evaluate their use for this study, and to select a method of analysis and synthesis that would be practical. From information Obtained as aforementioned, criteria were established for the design requirements of forage storage and feed systems, and other limitations on layout design imposed by related considerations. using the design criteria, layout plans were prepared including components for forage storage, feeding and other necessary and related:items. Each layout included provisions for expansion since this was considered one of the more important criteria. The results were analyzed and summarized. IV A. MEASUREMENT OF FORAGE QUALITY The relative importance of forage crops conserved for animal feed largely depends upon the climate, topography and soil conditions of any particular location. Materials that may be conserved as forage include cereals, legumes, sugar beet tops, potatoes, pea cannery waste etc. Of these pasture, alfalfa, corn and cereals are considered pertinent to this study. In order to be able to compare different. forages and meth- ods of conservation it is essential to have a unit of quality for evaluating their nutritional value. Dry matter is a comparatively easy method to use, since the deter- mination of moisture content requires only a short time and relatively simple equipment. It may be used in comparing crops which are similar and substitute equally for each other in livestock rations, but will not differentiate between crops having dissimilar nutrient content and value. ‘ Total Digestible Nutrients are mostly used in North American literature. Starch Equivalents (S.E.), Protein Equivalent (PTE.) and other measures of the net energy value of feeding stuffs are widely used in Europe. If the percent digestible constituents are known for any particular feed, it is possible to convert to either system. Hay Equivalent is a crude rule of thumb valuation assuming 3 tons corn silage as being equivalent to l ton.hay. Comparison of nutrient content of hay crop forages on the basis of number 1 alfalfa hay will give reasonable results. The Peterson system.is a method of including an economic assessment of value in comparing crops against their replace- 10 ment cost of corn meal and soy bean meal at prevailing prices. These methods do not take into account the relative value of the same feed for'milk production, weight gain or'maintenance of the same class of stock, or between classes for the same purpose. The value of forages will also be influenced to a considerable extent by the manage- ment capabilities, as this is expressed in conservation practices, feeding practices, stocking rate, livestock productivity and other feeds fed. IVB. HAYMAKING Hay making is the oldest method of preserving forages and still today is more widely practiced than any other method. Morrison (1956) defines the ideal or high quality hay as being made from.material cut at a suitable maturity, leafy and green with soft pliable stems. It should also be free from.mustiness or mold and have an attractive fragrance that adds to its palatability. The primary Object in hay making is to dry the green plants sufficiently so that the hay can'be stored without heating or becoming moldy. Commonly accepted moisture contents at which hay will satisfac- torily store are 25% for long hay, 22$ for'baled or chopped hay. (Shepperson 1956). The difficulty in making hay is to dry to these storage moisture contents without loss of nutrient, through respiration, leaching, mechanical losses, and other causes. There is a considerable amount of published literature on the losses in hay making. 'gwhtson and Nash (1960) point out however, that most of the published work has dealt only with the loss of dry matter and no cognizance has been taken of the fact that the actual loss of feeding value exceeds that of the dry matter, since the material which is lost is the most digestible part of the plant. The losses in Table l are given as typical examples of dry matter and nutrient loss when a conventional system of hay making is followed -- that is without the use of newer techniques and equipment. 11 12 TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE LOSSES IN HAY MAKING BASED ON NUTRIENTS IN THE FRESH CROP. — j—— Details of Treatment Dry Matter Dig. Prot. T.D.N.l Nolgzzn - No mechanical 8.7 13.8 22.6 N013? ' NO mammal 1m 32.7 38.6 Rain 23.7 not 19.7 1-2 showers (1-20 mm.) 18.9 27.8 13.6 5-6 showers (12-63 mm.) 27.1 19.8 51+.2 Average 20.3 36.2 hh.7 Source: watson and Nash (1960), p. 76. 1Calculated from data Morrison:(l956) Appendix Table l, p. 1086. Under favorable conditions it is suggested that the total loss of dry matter should not exceed 20% - 30$ for legume hay and 10$ - 15$ for grass hay, but under unfavorable conditions the loss will be considerably higher. Text books on husbandry and forage conservation give details on hay making techniques. (Morrison 1956. watson and Nash 1960). Studies have also been.made, and are widely reported, on the probability of suitable hay making weather. (Fer example see Vary l95h. Maddex and HOglund 1962.). 13 The importance of this research is that it indicated the time for hay making should be made as short as possible to prevent excessive field loss, if possible during the one day that fair weather conditions seem assured. This in turn influences the choice, use and capital investment in hay making machinery and any drying process that may be associated with it. It will also influence the labor demand if continuous systems of hay making and handling are contemplated. Hartwig (l9h2) reported on studies that indicated there is no advantage in delaying cutting until the dew has dried. Rees and Mitchell (195%) found that there was no advantage in cutting hay after 2 p.ms, late afternoon cut hay dried no sooner than hay cut early the following morning. Morrison (1956) states that hay dries more rapidly in the swath than in the windrow and advocates leaving it in the swath until the hay is partly cured, if good weather continues it may be completely cured in the windrow. This author believes that following the conventional mowing machine, hay swaths should at least be immediately turned with.a swath turner, since this exposes the stems which are the most difficult part of the plant to dry and causes the leaves to remain.moist for second and subsequent handling, thus reducing leaf loss. Some‘writers,quoted'by .Morrison (1960), have suggested that by maintaining the leaves alive continued respiration.may draw'water from the stems to facilitate their drying. Bruhn (1955) reported on the current use of forage crushers to increase the field drying rate. In subsequent work Bruhn (1959) indicated that crushing or other laceration of the tissues should take 1h place immediately following cutting. Delaying crushing time loses the advantage of the higher dry rate of the crushed material prior to treat- ment. Double treatment, with a delay between the 1st and 2nd crushing, produced a very high drying rate with a considerable Jump at the time of the second treatment. Lehmann, M. (1931) reported that crushing of alfalfa shortened the time of drying by slightly more than half of that needed for hay in mower swaths. Similar results were found from Agri- cultural Experiment stations at Pennsylvania, Cornell, Missouri, Alabama. Some workers have commented that crushed hay picks up moisture more easily. Turk, 21:91» (1951) found that even after overnight rain, crushed hay dried more rapidly than normal hay. Mitchell and Shepperson (1955) in England found that crushed herbage absorbed more water at night and was likely to suffer damage by rain. They also report that crushing can reduce field time in England by about one day in three and may make all the difference beWeen getting in or losing a crop in unsettled weather. Nevertheless, even though the drying rates for herbages are far below those for continental climates as in the United States, the risk of crushed hay suffering serious nutrient losses through rainfall is likely to more than outweigh the advantages of the operation. Flail harvesters have been used with apparent success to 'make hay in a day' , and farmers' and machinery dealers' ad hoc. and success- ful demonstrations have been reported from time to time in the popular press. Manor manufacturers of these machines market special hay making attachments which direct the flow of lacerated material into a windrow. Other modifications include reducing the peripheral speed of the flails to reduce the mechanical losses by over severe laceration. Bruhn (1959) 15 suggests that to approach an acceptable drying rate through the use of a flail chopper, the machine will need to be operated in such a way as to cause excessive mechanical losses. In some instances over 1+0$ separa- tion (by weight of material that will pass through a 2 in mesh poultry netting) with flail choppers was recorded, compared to less than 10% for roller crushers. In view of this, and the mediocre drying rate of the material conditioned with flail machines, he questions its use as a forage conditioner (cf. roller crushers). When the hay cr0p is considered to be dry, the leaves are normally drier and more brittle than the less easily dried portions of the stem. Watson and Nash (1960) report that the possibility of loss increased as the hay approached a 30% average moisture content even though the shattered material varied from 9.3% - 11.8%. Dobie 3331. (1953) found that to ensure minimum loss of leaf from alfalfa, the hay should not be raked or handled if its moisture content is below 55$. When hay is care- lessly made leaf shatter losses may reach 20% - 30$, but can be reduced in hay under 55% m.c. by raking in the early morning in conditions of high humidity. Hay drying is now an established practice in the United States where it is found to eliminate some of the weather risks in hay making and produce hay of superior quality. Considerable interest is shown in Western Europe, but the practice has not yet become truly established. The techniques to be employed in drying are described in Agricultural Experiment Station bulletins of mamr northern and western American uni- versities. (Tennessee, Wisconsin, Michigan, Cornell, New (Brunswick, Idaho, Pennsylvania, etc.) More serious discussions will be found in 16 Hall (1957) Shepperson (1958). The concensus of the recommendations is that chopped hay dries more evenly and faster. Length is important and 2 in theoretical cut appears to give the best results. Optimum moisture content at commencement of drying for baled or ch0pped hay is 35$. Small loose bales are most satisfactory and may be hand stacked on edge or random stacked. Recirculation of the drying air has recently come into prominence through a claimed reduction in operating costs and in some cases an increase in hay quality is reported. (ROberts 1961, Weaver 1962). Equipment for Handlinggflay. Many studies have been.made on the problems of hay making over the past few years and have resulted in a rapid change of methods and techniques. However, many problems still remain to be solved and it is expected that changes will continue to be made until some system.can'be devised to eliminate the prOblems of weather vagaries and those caused by the nature or physical condition of hay. At the same time these changes must take into account the competition of alternative methods of conservation. What is attempted in this section is to delineate the area of knowledge, especially of current trends and anticipated developments, needed to appreciate the problems involved in gathering, storing and feeding hay crops in feed lots. The methods of handling hay may be listed as: l. Hay loader ) l h t . Buck-rake ) ong 3? S ored loose l7 2. Baled. 3. Chopped. h. Pelleted or wafered. Long Bay. Long hay stored loose is still a common method of handling but it is rapidly giving way to more modern systems that allow a high degree of mechanization. At the present time the only worth while consideration in using this method is the small amount of capital investment in machinery. Handling systems are not geared to high annual outputs and can rarely be considered within the context of this study. Hewever, Lewis (undated) suggests that ranchers and producers of feeder stock in the west find loose hay a satisfactory and inexpensive method when the hay is to be fed within a relatively short distance from the field. Baled Hay. Baled hay per se, does not permit elimination of manual handling. Clayton, Kleis and Gaunt (1960) list the individual stages of bale handling: 1. Loading on to vehicle. 2. Piling on load. 3. Placement on elevator. h. Distributing in mow. 5. Stacking in.mow. 6 . Removal from mow . 7. Breaking, distributing and feeding. 18 Several techniques and machines have been developed to eliminate much of this man handling. Shepperson and'Wright (1957) devised a system using front- and rear-mounted buckrakes to pick up heaps of bales left by a manually loaded bale sled. More than k tons per hour of hay bales were loaded, transported and unloaded, over a 1000 yard trip, per operator. This system.has been developed to the extent that using manually loaded sleds, bale heaps can be picked up and transported by specially designed buckrakes and built into a bale stack some 12 bales high without man handling. To eliminate the limiting output of manually loading sleds, automatic sleds have been developed which leave heaps of 8 - 12 bales (standard size) to be picked up by a clamp arrangement mounted on the frame work of front end loader and loaded into self unloading wagons for random stacking in a barn. Bale throwers attached to the end of the baler will also eliminate the physical task of loading onto a vehicle and piling on a load. 0n level ground less orthodox systems are adopted for loading direct from a baler such as pushing the bales up a chute onto the wagon. Whilst this is simple and cheap it requires manual effort to load the wagon or at least keep the end of the chute clear. Also considerable variation is found in bale densities if there is any ground undulation and this could lead to uneven drying in the mow. Weaver and Bruhn (1962) describe four methods of loading hay from a'baler, including two methods of direct loading baled, but not tied material. These methods of loading provided hay of sufficiently consistent density to give good results when dried using a recirculatory system.of drying in the wagons into which the hay was loaded. 19 The short bale, a nominal 1h in x 18 in x 20 in, normally used with the.mechanical bale ejector almost presupposes that the bales will be randomly stacked in the mow. Using self unloading wagons and conven: tional general purpose elevators the procedure for filling the barns will often be as varied as the buildings used for storage. Unifonn distribution is necessary within the barn, existing conveyor distribu- tion systems appear satisfactory. The greatest prdblem now with baled hay is the method of removing it from store and feeding it to the stock. Schnieder (1955) and (1957) describes a conveyor feeding system for dairy cows in stanchions and loose housing in which the Operator was required to pitch the hay onto the conveyor. Kleis and Wiant (1960) comment that removal from storage has continued to be a manual operation for all forms of hay, except where self feeding is involved. Witz (1963) describes a unit to slice and meter baled hay but which also requires hand feeding from the stored heap of bales. Sturrock (1960) shows that when bales are hand stacked, the simplest method is to break open the bales and throw them down behind a portable feeding barrier. Even when broken, baled hay, since it is essentially long, will not feed reliably through forage boxes. Thus whilst many of the manual handling operations of bales can be eliminated, there are still parts of a bale handling system that defy adequate mechanization or systemization. 20 Chopped Hay. Chopped hay allows complete mechanization of harvesting and storage operations permitting free use of auger conveyors, blowers and gravity in handling. h in - 8 in is generally taken as the optimum. length of chop (Clayton, ICLeis and Gaunt 1960, Luddington 1960). A 2 in theoretical cut will usually give a h in cut length in practice. For chopped hay it is almost mandatory that a drying system.be used for finishing the hay because of increased mechanical loss when chopping material that has field dried sufficiently to be stored. Shepperson (1956) concluded storage should be restricted to a density of 5 - 6 lb per cubic foot and in special cases this would imply a moisture content of not higher than 20% at chopping. In view of the difficulties attached to drying hay to this level in the swath the practice of direct chopping in the field should be lumited. _The disadvantages in respect of risk and quality would seem to outweigh the Obvious advantages to be gained in labor economy. Pneumatic conveyors are used for conveying chopped material'but these are not altogether satisfactory. At low moisture content there is a shattering of the leafy material and much of this may be lost as dust. (Hatson and Nash 1960). Further, the difference in bulk weights of the leaf particles and stems causes poor distribution in the mow. Hansen (1952) stated that a severe limitation in the use of chopped hay was the lack of adequate mechanized equipment to distribute the hay over the mow dryer uniformly and without leaf/ stem separation. Hillier (1958) found that forage blowers would not handle chopped hay satisfactorily and developed a belt tube elevator designed to elevate all types of l_‘ In [1‘ [D {J r) ‘I‘ (J P.’ ((1 21 chopped forages at all angles and with a reasonably high elevating efficiency.the principle of operation is that of elevating by means of one or two belts running inside a tube, which grip the material and move it upwards at a high speed. Brooks (1957) describes a hay drying and handling system to load chopped hay into a'barn which had performed satisfactorily for two years, except for some difficulty with the hay distribution equipment. Luddington (1960) describes a similar system. Front unloading, as Opposed to rear unloading, wagons were used and the hay discharged into a modified farm elevator with slats to prevent the hay tumbling backwards, thence onto a mow hay conveyor and a.mechanical hay distributor. weeks and ICleis (1962) claimed that no commercially available automatic mow unloader was available for chopped hay. They developed an unshrouded cantilever’mounted auger which would both distribute hay during loading and unload chopped hay. .Although the auger‘moves in a circular sweep within a square storage unit it is claimed that 90% - 95% of the hay is subject to mechanized handling. witz (1962) suggested that in common with ground feed and silage, chopped hay is often quite free flowing if it is kept in.motion,'but if allowed to accumulate it becomes a non free flowing material. Using this idea, stationary flat bottomed bins of silage and chopped hay were loaded with drag-chains as on the manure spreader and feed wagon. Conditions were defined for which it was concluded that, by occasional calibration, a constant flow of materials could be obtained which would be satisfactory for all normal rations. Discharge rates could be varied and were approximately linear for chain speeds of 7 - 37 feet per’minute. Such storage bins could be incorporated into a unit of several, each 22 containing different materials allowing proportioned rations to be'with; drawn as required. McKibben (1962) suggests two ways of removing chopped hay from storage, to remove the hay along a horizontal face, or remove it vertically allowing the hay to fall when drawn free of the stored mass -- this requires a vertical face. The second alternative is favored since the hay removal will be across any variations in hay layers resulting from materials or haymaking conditions. It will allow greater flexibility of filling and feeding so that hay may be stored in portions of the structure that have been emptied without disturbing the removal equipment or feeding arrangements. Also the structure and equipment can allow drying of hay in refilled portions and mechanical removal of other hay without interference of one with the other. Finner (1962) regards removal of chopped hay from storage as a bulk handling problem and suggests the use of a fork lift truck with a large fork to place material from storage into a metering device consist- ing of a large permanently installed self unloading wagon. One of the prOblems to be overcome will be to decide on the optimum length of chop of the hay, since most of the existing feed box mechanisms, including the unit of McKibben described above, work better with a chopped length of 2 in or less. Self feeding of chopped hay has been developed in Missouri (McKibben 1962) and Iowa (Barnes and Beresford 1951;). Plans are avail- able for the design of 50 ton storage units including drying facilities and provision for self feeding from the unit. (Shove l9h7). 23 Pelleted or Wafered Hay. Helleted or wafered hay is in the ultimate physical form that can at present be field produced. In this form hey can be considered to be changed from a non free flowing form to one which is relatively free flowing, thus widening the sc0pe for use of materials handling equipment (Hall 1958). Bruhn (1956) presented a study of engineering and nutri- tional problems of feeding pelleted (pre ground) and wafered (short chopped) feeding stuffs. He showed from a variety of experimental work that for ruminents pelletized forages should be limited to those coarsely ground or chOpped because of the reaction of the cow to finely ground forage. Bruhn, Zinnnerman and Niederman (1958) stated that two types of pellets are necessary, the coarse large type made of chopped or long hay for dairy cows and the conventional ground forage pellets for other livestock. Ballets of the proper size, density and consistency will be utilized by the average dairy cow as well as hay in ansr other form. The moisture content of the material being pelleted is important, alfalfa pellets can be made up to 30% moisture, but lower moisture contents seem to be desirable. Storage of pellets, even when wetted did not seem to present any particular problems. Fischer (1962) suggested that in well designed pneumatic conveying systems breakage of pellets should be main-I tained at a level lower than, or no more than that experienced in a mechanical system. In the future field pelleting or wafering machines may become basic harvesting tools. However considerably more research and develop- ment needs to be done on the formation of these wafers in order for the system to be of value as a method of fodder conservation in competition 21+ with others. Present wafering machines not only demand large power units, they Operate effectively only in hay of 20% - 25% moisture content, which to obtain the greatest benefits needs to be field dried. IV C. SILAGE Silage is the name given to the succulent material produced by the process of controlled changes from a green crop or other materials of high moisture. The process is known as ensilage and the container, when used, the silo. During the ensiling process the changes which occur in the material are affected by respiration, micro-organisms, temperature, moisture and chemical changes. Watson and Nash (1960), Morrison (1956) and others detail the essential conditions for good ensiling. Briefly they may be listed as: a. The exclusion of oxygen by close packing of the forage to prevent permeation by air, b. The exclusion of water, including that which is normally present in growing plant tissues as well as precipitation on to the top of ensiled material, c. The establishment of conditions which will induce fermenta- tion of the material and formation of lactic acid. These conditions or requirements are directly influenced by the initial condition of the material and of the method of ensiling. In other words they are under the control of the farmer, and his exercise of this control will to a large extent determine the quality of ensiled materials, the loss of nutrients and the acceptibility or palatability of the silage to the stock. The type and physical condition of the silo contributes to the attainment of the ideal requirements for ensiling. 25 26 Since it also determines the aystem.of forage harvesting and feeding we can list the following as interadependent variables of a conservation system; 1. Management of conservation and feeding processes. 2. Silos which determine conservation methods. 3. Mechanization of conservation. 1+. Feeding méthods. Each variable has a separate contribution to make to the production and handling of a quality silage. The effects of management and silo structures merit further consideration. Mechanization and feeding are discussed in later sections. 1. Management. ‘Wastage or loss of nutrient value during ensiling is associated with the three essential requirements: 8.. Exclusion of oxygen. So long as air is present the plant cells will continue to respire, converting carbohydrates with the release of energy. The direct loss of dry matter is referred to as the "unavoidable loss." It is however only unavoidable in the conditions actually prevailing in the silo at the time, altera- tion of the DIOCGSS‘Will change the magnitude of these losses. A second loss caused by excess oxygen and frequently referred to as waste is the spoilage due to mold and bacterial growth on the surface and sides. It is a variable quantity and depends on the efficiency of compaction. It should be minimal in tower silos. The third loss is that due to over heating which causes a chemi- cal change in the proteins, rendering them indigestible. (Morrison 1956). b9 27 Exclusion of water. The drainage from a silo will contain soluble nutrients representing a significant loss of dry matter, whether the water was contained within plant tissues or percolated through the crop from precipitation. Watson and Nash (1960) give 6% of the original dry matter as the average loss in effluent, calculated from published experimental data since 1938, or direct made silage. The comparable figure for wilted silage was 0.5%. Gordon (1961) listed 7 causes of seepage and showed that dry matter loss in seepage approached 15% of original dry matter at 80% mtc. ensiled material, the loss approached 0% at 65% - 70$ m.c. in stored forages. A further problem with effluent is the difficulty of disposing of material having such a high'biochems ical demand for oxygen. (M.A;F.F. 1960) (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food). Establishment of conditiomsfbr fermentation. By providing the first two requirements much has already been done to establish the conditions needed for fermentation. It is necessary for the cells to cease respiring and die and for the micro-organisms to multiply using the cell material as a medium, The course taken by this fermentation will decide the value of the final product and its acceptability to cattle. McCullough (1962) suggested that greater control may need to be exercised as in air tight or hermetic silos for the first 5 days of ensiling, since dairy cows appear less tolerant of various fermentations than beef cattle. This seems to mean that it is important to stop both aerobic and anaerdbic respiration as quickly as possible to stimulate lactic 28 acid formation. 2. Silos. a. Stacks and clamps. Stack silage, built on level ground is the simplest method since it can be ad0pted without any capital outlay and at relatively short notice. It is the least efficient method. There is no protection against entry of air and the stack cannot be consolidated except using special equipment. Over heating commonly occurs and there is usually a large amount of waste material at the sides. To make the best silage (M.A.F.F. 1960) suggests that the material should be harvested at a young succulent stage of growth, chopped short if at all mature and the stack should have vertical sides. The clamp is also built on ground level but is usually rectangular in area, and built with leping ends so that tractors can unload directly on the clamp and can give consolidation to exclude air. Apart from this it has the same disadvantages as a stack and needs the same consideration of material treatment. Larrabee and Sprague (1957) report the successful use of sheets of polyvinyl chloride or polyethylene for stacks. Aerdbic fermentation was completely controlled and the silages were adjudged to be of excellent quality. Trials in.Florida indicate that spoilage in these plastic silos may be as low as 5% (Holmes, Harrison and Skinner 1959). Similar plastic silos have been used in Britain. Although apparently successful for small circular silos Watson and Nash (1960) are not satisfied that the plastic 29 silo is safe to use for the slowly made large sized clamp. The plastic silo seems to be most useful when it is necessary to make provision in.an.emergency for a sudden surplus of ensileable material, or to guard against short term contingencies. Trench and bunker silos. The first silo inthe United States is reputed to be a trench h ft x 10 ft deep and 2h ft long used in 1876 by Frances Morris in Maryland. This type has retained its p0pu1arity and in a refined form.is today widely used in Great Britain. It is similar to the clamp silo except that the major part of the silage settles into the ground and is protected at the sides. The walls may be lined with concrete to improve the protection afforded to the side and they can also be used to support a roof. The roofed, walled, trench silo is the most desirable method of storing silage in an horizontal position. (M.A.F.F. 1961b). In this form it fulfills the same role as a walled and roofed surface silo, or so called bunker silo. Constructional details for these silos are found in many exten- sion bulletins. For examples see Brevik, Friday and Maddex (undated), MCCalmont (1956), Holmes, Harrison and Skinner (1959), M.A.F.F. (1961b). U.S.D.A. research (Anon. 1961a) shows that plastic covers to seal bunker silos reduce feed losses more than.might be indicated by comparing spoilage layers. Visible apoilage in sealed and unsealed bunkers actually accounted for only 1/7 total dry matter loss. About 20% reduction in total loss was achieved by the 30 plastic cover through control of seepage and respiration. c. Tower silos. .Adams 1889 (reported by'Watson and Nash (1960)) stated that depth in the silo is preferable to breadth, and this became the keynote of silo building practices in the development of the tower. A further development is to give greater control to the ensiling process by evacuating the air. Recent work in Belgium and France has shown that samples of silage from evacu- ated plastic silos give a better product than samples made without plastic covering. The modern form of hermetically sealed silos is an attempt to give Optimum.fermentation control. Gordon (1961) gave details of mintnum dry matter losses in forage stored as silage, estimated from'U.S.D.A. research at Beltsville. This is reproduced as Table 2. The figures show the relative efficiencies of stack silos and the low dry matter loss of both conventional and gas tight tower silos at lower moisture content. Management Control of Silage Quality McCullough (1962) gives as the ideal grass silage composition T.D.N. not less than 6h$ Crude fiber less than 28$ PH about It . 2 Dry matter not less than 2h$ Crude protein about 18% The determining factor of optimum quality in this case is that any increase in quality will not affect the rate of intake by cattle. 31 TABLE 2 ESTIMATE 0F MINIMUM.DRY MATTER LOSSES IN FORAGE STORED.AS SILAGE AT DIEFERENT MOISTURE LEVELSl : Dry matter losses Silo type 2 &Hmsc.’% of forage : Surface :Fermen- : Seepage : Total : Field : Total as stored. : spoilage: tation3 : : silo : losses : : : : $ : $ : $ : $ Stack 85 : 12 : 12 : 10 . 3h . 2 36 8O : l2 : ll : 7 . 3O . 2 32 75 : 16 11 : 3 . 30 . 2 . 32 70 : 20 12 : 1 33 2 . 35 Trench 85 : 6 z 11 : 10 27 2 29 80 : 6 : 10 : 7 . 23 . 2 : 25 75 : 8 : 9 : 3 . l8 . 2 : 20 70 : 10 10 : 1 21 2 : 23 Convention- al tower 85 : 3 : 10 . 10 : 23 . 2 : 25 80 = 3 = 9 = 7 l9 2 : 21 75 ° 3 : 8 : 3 : 1h 2 : 16 7O : h : 7 . 1 . l2 : 2 : 1h 65 : h : 8 : O . l2 : h : 16 6O : h : 9 : O : l3 : 6 : 19 lConservative estimates for careful filling methods and good drainage based on 6 months of storage. Plastic caps or other good covers will reduce top spoilage. Peor compacting and sealing of the silage and excessive rainfall or melting snow on uncovered trenches and stacks will increase losses. 2Includes side and end spoilage in trenches and stacks. 3Allowance made for some heating and flake mold at the lower’moisture,' levels. Data from U.S.D.A. BDI inf. 1&9. 1953 Mimeographed Report p. 10. 32 TABLE 2--Continued Dry matter losses Silo type‘ 8: m.c. % of forage : surfaCe : Fermen- : Seepage : Total : Field' : Total as stored : spoilagét tation3 : : silo : losses : : : $ : % : $ : $ : $ Gas-tight tower 85 : 0 . 10 : 10 2O : 2 : 22 8O : O : 9 : 7 . 16 : 2 : 18 75 ° 0 : 8 ' 3 . ll : 2 : 13 70 . 0 : 7 . l . 8 : 2 : 10 65 : 0 : 6 . 0 . 6 : h : 10 60 ° 0 : 5 : 0 : 5 : 6 : 11 50 : O : h : O : h . 10 : 1h 1+0 . 0 : b. : 0 : Ll» : 13 : 17 Gordon (1961) showed that cows ate less dry matter as low dry matter silage and produced relatively less milk when compared to barn dried hay. As the dry matter of the silage increased so did the daily dry matter intake of the cows and the relative production of milk. He sug- gested that this demonstrated the better acceptability of high dry matter silage, and its greater effectiveness in milk production. Gordon also showed that higher dry matter silage was more efficient in.produc- ing liveweight gains of beef animals. No explanation was offered for this. Drying high moisture silage did not increase its palatibility nor ‘wetting hay decrease its acceptance. Gordon et_al. (1960) found that direct cut harvesting of silage yielded a product of lower feed value than wilted silage or hay, but wilted silage approached or was equal to good hay.A werner (1960) reported similar findings. For this reason 33 general statements concerning the relative feed values of silage and good hay have very limited application because of the within silage variability associated with wilting. Werner (1960) also noted that cows, given a- choice, preferred the higher dry matter silage. He suggested there was no limit to the minimum moisture content at which silage could be made, except for the increasing difficulty of keeping air out of the silage mass. M.A.F.F. (1961) advising on wilting ostensibly for bunker silos, recommends dry matter contents of 25%, chopping or lacerating to give consolidation, using leafy material and filling the silo as quickly as possible. Comparing wilted and unwilted silage making (apparently in trench or bunker silo although this is not stated) Mudd (1963) found that wilting did not increase ensiling time. Using two swath boards with a 60 in wide mower enabled the swath to be picked up with a 1+0 in wide flail chopper without needing to windrow. The mowing machine cut lower than the harvester and gave a higher gross yield. McCullough (1962) blames many of the problems of poor silage to length of chop, and considers 2 in -- a legacy of flail harvesters -- as not short enough. Gordon (1961) outlined the precautions to be observed in making high dry matter silage, and required the material to be chopped as fine as possible —- not with a forage harvester. The interest in high dry matter silage has been further stimu- :Lated by very telling salesmanship of gas tight silos built especially for silages of approximately 60% dry matter (referred to as haylage.). 'l'he advantage of such a silo is that fermentation of wilted silage is IIlore easily controlled by the complete exclusion of oxygen and is said to be characterized more by the absence of undesirable ferments than by the 31+ presence of desirable ones. (Anon. 1961b). This controlledprocess is believed by McCullough (1962) to be important for 1+ - 5. days while the pH is lowered to about it. Any subsequent leakage of air into the silo will not spoil the silage which will also have a longer trough life, especially in warm weather. This is the only make of silo which offers a. bottom unloader so that materials may be added for ensilage at the t0p, as mature silage is being withdrawn from the bottom. Table 2 shows that the estimated silo losses for this type are least of any, but the addi- tional exposure in the field during wilting increases dry matter loss as percent dry matter increases. The optimum moisture content appears to be about 60%. Gordon (1961) questions the need to wilt below this point. Work by the U.S.D.A. at Beltsville (Anon. 1961b) showed that a'Etlfalfa haylage was more acceptable to dairy cows and that milk produc- ‘tion and body weight gains were higher when compared with direct cut Qlfalfa silage. But no comparison was given of the amount of dry matter Qaten. Comparing alfalfa stored in air tight and concrete stave silos hubry et al. (1960a) suggested that storage loss is a factor to consider :In the choice of a structure. The amount of loss during the short trial Vas not an important factor against the stave silo, but digestion trials gave some indication that the high dry matter forage in concrete stave silos may have suffered losses in feeding value after 60 days in storage. Terry 5t__a_l_. (1962) reported that chopped hay and haylage made in air ‘tight silos had similar feeding values and haylage stored in a conven—8 'tional concrete silo was slightly inferior to that stored in air tight silos. Caps or plastic seals are necessary in concrete silos to reduce 35 loss due to top spoilage. After critical trials making low moisture silage in conventional concrete tower silos Gordon gt_al. (1961) suggested that a dependable method for doing this could be developed. ”The results indicated that excessively elaborate precautions to exclude air were not necessary, although the silo walls and doors must be tight. To ensure rapid expulsion Of the air the crop should be cut as fine as possible, and 'the silo filled rapidly. In addition'Werner (1961) recommends larger filiameter silos of 16 ft and upwards and considerable height of material to ensure good compaction. Equipment for Handling_§ilage Silage making can now be fully mechanized by the use of commercial- £:l_r:y available machinery. Its use on similar farming types has led to '1l:=#2he development of similar methods and techniques that have come to be :JEZF‘wegarded as standard methods, not by definition or objective attainment _]=:=>‘1ut by common usage. A study of field performances of such common "55‘::ystems using forage harvesters and'bunker silos provided more reliable :JE;=>wq .\\\\\\\\V xosn uomo>oou \ III/[III oHHm Hmowuum> i\\ samum Hausa pom ouoo ooHHonm ououmwoa nwwm \VA\ 0H ownfim downs owmuom OHHw HmufiONHHOI owmafim ouoo owmfiww mono ham 71+ by the storage of forage and the feeding facility. The different patterns and shapes that can exist within a form may appear more diverse than those which exist between forms embodying different methods, especially is this true when existing facilities and buildings are incorporated into a new design. However, the important requirement when selecting a layout is to identify the form which most closely meets the planning objectives and modify this for the particu- lar location and conditions. A. Vertical Silos. Conveyor Bunk Feeding The simplest layout is shown in Fig. 2. This is a basic layout and illustrates the integration of the three functional components. The single lot is limited to about 100 head of beef animals 1LOO lb and up, fewer if dairy cows, more if small beef animals. This limit is imposed by the behavioral characteristics of the animals. In this simplest form all the assumptions and design requirements of the lot are met. Suitable dimensions would be 60 ft x 72 ft for the paved open lot and 60 ft x 30 ft for the shelter. The simple layout makes it most likely to be built in one operation as the beginning of a complete system but it can be developed in stages. For example: a. Pave or outline the lot, using existing structures for shelter, or build final shelter. b. Self feed silage in the yard or use self feed hay wagons or storage units. c. Erect the silo. Use self feeding wagons filled by hand and pulled into the yard. 75‘ ¢ 60' )4 Bedding area 30' 1 l Mechanical 40, feed bunk 70, Yard area may be reduced to this line if unrestricted access allowed Grain fee unit Ill/[711]] III/7llllllllijI7—IIIIII Vertical silo 20' x 60‘ capacity 500 tons Fig. 2. Feed lot layout with vertical silo suitable for 100 beef animals, showing essential requirements of feedstore, feeding facility and livestock area 76 d. Install the conveying/feeding system. e. Complete animal handling facilities. The open simplicity of the layout makes it adaptable for milk and beef cows and also hogs. The length of the lot open area has been extended to give 2h linear in per head of stock for restricted feeding and to allow movement of livestock at the end of the bunk without passing into the shelter. The feeder in the center of the lot is more than half of a fence line, which when extended into the shelter can be used to divide the lot into two. Each side may be used for different categories of stock, the bunk feeder must be of the type that fills each side of the bunk alternately if the two half lots need different rations. The single silo imposes a limitation on the length of time stock may be fed in the yards. It is quite impossible to calculate precisely the feed needed for the time when the silo will be empty and during the filling and ensiling process. For dairy cows this may be met by a; period of early summer grazing, but for hogs and beef cattle it makes the feeding mafiagement more difficult. For a top unloaded silo the maximum removal of silage should be during the late summer. At an assumed 3 in per day necessary to prevent excessive spoilage of the top layers, a 20 ft diameter silo will require a minimum daily removal rate of 1.6 tons, i.e., sufficient for 58 beef stock or 36 dairy cows. With chOpped ear corn silage the quantities would be 1 ton daily, 38 beef stock or 21+ dairy cows. 77 The position of the silo determines the area of feed storage development. All additions to forage storage and feed grain storage will be in close proximity to the original silo. Provided that the projection of the auger conveyor is not obstructed by the silo, the discharge face of the silo may point into the feed lot or normal to the line of the conveyor. Figs. 3a and 3b show the deveIOpment of the plan, and the influence of the orientation of the first silo on subsequent siting. In Fig. 3a the extension of the forage silos has been parallel to the projected line of the original feed bunk. This was determined by having the first silo with the discharge face adjacent to the extension or the bunk conveyor. The silo location is shown as 8 ft from the lot boundary to give a movement passage for animals. The silos discharge into a transfer conveyor which may be above or below grOund level. On the opposite side of the conveyor is the feed grain unit which may take the’most suitable form for the requirements of the farm. In essence feed grains with such supplements as may be necessary are added to the transfer conveyor with the forage. An. inclined conveyor lifts the mate- rial to a minimum height of 7 ft over the 8 ft wide passage, and then into the second transfer conveyors which deliver the material into the outside lots. The 3 lots in Fig. 3a can be fed different rations if occupied by different classes of livestock and by dividing each lot into two, six individual groups may be established. Material flow from the grain feed unit and silos converging at one point makes control of ration ingredi- ents simple . 78 Bedding area 'Mechanical feed bunk /—"" _\ '- / F P- D D D Drainage } Wagon filling_ Overhead conveyor - —— c o——-——— the elements it induces tidy housekeeping habits and more hygenic work routines. , Expansion is theoretically unlimited, separate lots could he extended on each side, requiring only an extension of the conveyors and feed and forage storage units. Practical limitations are imposed by the site and the inadequacy and cost of the conveying system. An estimate of this limit is 5 separate lots. Mechanization in some degree is most usual and can be carried to complete programming of rations and feeding sequence. The necessity for linear planning is demonstrated in the Joint use of the transfer auger by the forage and grain feed storages. It is often debated that the silos should be put into the lot area to eliminate much of the transfer conveying. It is true that in this way the conveyor length will be reduced but this extra length has no influence on the functional efficiency of the system. The extra cost has to be balanced against the convenience of the movement lane for' livestock and its use in disposal of manure. Drainage flows will normally run parallel to the bunks and into the movement lane, which then becomes a drainage channel. Gutter cleaners may be used to move 80 Bedding area Mechanical feed bani [III/IIIILIIIIIII Overhead conveyors Grain 1 ' Working feed < passage for unit cattle \L movement \ Horizontal conveyo covered are Rearwards inclined elevato Fig. 3b. Feed lot layout with vertical silos. Alternative arrangements of silos for extension of single lot to multiple units 81 manure to a pond or tank or directly into spreaders for immediate disposal. Changes in the layout may be needed to provide shelter from the west or east. Fig. 3b is almost the same layout except the orientation of the silos is normal to the line of the feed bunks. This is a considera- tion when the storage units need to be built along the already estab- lished building line without projecting into and spoiling an area that may be needed for other development. It is more usual to find that this layout is made necessary by having the discharge face of the first silo facing the lots or even at the end of the feed bunk as shown in the sketch. If there is no movement lane beWeen the silo and the lot the installation of the conveyors is simple. However it is much more difficult when the conveyors have to span the movement lane at a height of 7 ft and additional conveyors and elevators may be needed. One possible solution is shown, an elevator is inclined away from the lot. in order to gain height, and the material is conveyed forwards in a horizontal conveyor to the second transfer conveyor. This layout offers more shelter along one side of the lot which, if on the southern aspect could be undesirable in winter in the mOre northern regions. On the other hahd access to the silos for filling is excellent in contrast to the layout in Fig. 3a where there may be sane , difficulty in getting sufficiently close to the first silo. The " efficiency of silage making operations can be seriously impaired if unloading the forage trailers is not made simple and almost fool proof. In cases with poor access a permanent filling elevator conveniently 82 placed, with cross conveyors to fill each silo, may be a satisfactory solution. Some writers feel that it is so important to avoid shade on the southern aspect that they require the feeding unit to be placed on the northerly side. This means feeding through the bedded area, as depicted in Fig. )4. The essential conditions of the rectangular layout previously shown have been maintained. The main difference is in the additional lengths of conveyor needed. By suitable planning this layout can lead to a pleasing appearance. The layout shown is especially suitable for beef and dairy cows. The storage units have been built up to the margin of a 10 ft lean-to on to the north side of the cattle shelter. The passage fouled by this lean-to serves as a movement lane and also the covered control area for the storage and blending units. All the storage units are served by a continuous reversible conveyor built either below or above ground level. Although subject to contamination the below ground level unit will give more convenience. At each end of the long conveyor is an inclined por- tion or elevator to a cross conveyor giving headroom in the movement passage and also in the bedded area. The feed bunks are sited in the open; no feeding is done within the hedded area. The covered passage on the north and the Open lane on the south allow complete recirculation of any pen either for weighing beef animals or for milking cows. The southern lane may also be used as a drainage channel as described for Fig. 2a, this would be especially useful if the center lane were used as a holding and washing area for milk cows. The width of each lot and the center passage is determined by the necessity 83 N Auger conveyor Inclined below ground conveyor / Passage — . /1/ \ q Tea sage aleJ Covered area including passa (milk cows) \ k /A\ Auger conveyor (for at 7: height beef) and control are w4shing and holding area IYF 2,400 sq ft covered area 3,600 sq ft open area 100 sq ft per milk cow 60 .sq ft per head beef 10" trough per milk cow 6" trough per head beef Fig. 4. Feed lot with vert beef or dairy Catt at north of area Loading ramp ical silos. 4 unit layout for 1e with silos and shelter “ELLA 84 of conforming to the available standard building components. In this case 15 ft bays were assumed as standard. The flexibility of the unit has been described. In the sketch two 30 ft x 60 ft silos are shown for hay crop and all corn silage, and two 20 ft x 60 ft silos for high moisture shelled corn and small grains. Silo requirements beyond this would need additional cross conveyors to feed the main conveyor. The four individual lots shown are the probable limit of expansion, although additional lots could be added to each end. The basic unit is probably half the layout shown. In other" respects the form is that of the layout in Fig. 3b. An interesting theoretical layout is shown in Fig. 5. This is an attempt to produce maximum efficiency. A focal point of material flow from the store has been defined as an essential in determining feed movement. By develOping this concept further and using a rotating cOnveyor all feed bunks have in effect been made to terminate at a locus and the locus is fed by a single conveyor from the grain feed and forage store. The resulting lot areas become sectors but since circular designs are difficult to fit into established farmstead development, the overall shape is shown rectangular. Into the center of the: radii are focused cattle movement routes and drainage. This makes for a con- venient dairy cow layout since movement lanes and labor cOntrolled mOvement are minimized. The layout shows how a milking unit may be included in the compact arrangement. Shelter is arranged around the periphery 'of the rectangle giving the maximum protection in all directions. The unit would be adaptable to hogs as well as cattle. Lots 3 - 6 would make a 85 Shelter and bedded area i \ \ Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Feed bunks Lot 2 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 1 A. otating auger t/Q\ . onveyor (overhead) J Milk cows assembly anc1///I\~t \\ .3, .‘ \ holding area Hay or corn silage Milk room unit 70' high mOistug X: corn or 20'0' small grain Z Fig. 5. Feed lot layout with vertical silos, circular arrangements of feeding and cattle movement for beef and dairy cows 86 useful initial unit with which to begin, additional lots could be added as necessary. Without the dairy unit the lot area can be extended to include 270°. There are a number of changes needed for an effective practical design. The difficult cleaning in the corners of the buildings and the cost of using non standard building components in the corners. Adequate .provision would be needed for a supply of bedding to the shelter area, ' which must be through the rear wall of the shelter. In an enlarged design this form of layout is known as the pie shape layout and may be extended to give lot areas sufficiently large to remain unpaved. The shelter is then moved into isolated units on the circumference but it may also be incorporated into the radial fence lines separating the areas. Other features remain substantially the same. Vertical Silos. Forage Wagons and Fence Line Bunks . The forage wagon serves the role of a flexible conveying system between the focal point, where feed, grain and forage are blended, and the location of consumption in the livestock area. Because the forage wagon is so accommodating, there is no necessity for the forage silos to be oriented especially to the lot and this relieves considerably the prOblems of siting and design. The silo location needs primarily to have_good access for filling and feeding. Roads and access ways need to be hard surfaced for alldweather operations. The layout of the feed grain unit and silos is almost the same as previously discussed except that the transfer auger needs to discharge into the wagon. In the discussions on silo unloaders reference was made 87 to the slow rate of unloading especially under difficult conditions and the use of overhead bins for silage, as for ground meal. The building height should be made sufficient to allow for their subsequent installa- tion. The overhead bins with flat bottom doors should cover the whole area of the wagon. Ground feed and supplement may be added to the top of the silage in the forage wagon or elevated into the wagon or bin at. the same time as the silage. Fig. 6 shows a. similar arrangement of feed grain and silo unit that was used in Fig. 3 modified to drive through with a forage wagon. All of the storage layouts so far shown can easily be fitted with an auger conveyor for loading a wagon but overhead bins would have to be put outside the covered area to allow access for filling. Fig. 6'may be varied for large or small quantities by changing the size and number of silos. The only prerequisite is that the covered drive through be." built large enough in the first instance. The plan shown has a clear floor area of 30 ft x 40 ft giving adequate length for a tractor and forage wagon to be preloaded and left reachr for me and afforded sane protection against rain and freezing temperatures. The scale may be added when convenient . On small installations where time of filling is not critical the overhead bins will. not be necessary for forages. The forage cOnveyor will need to be high enough to clear the side of the wagon. (Some ll ft to point of discharge at 45° in order to fill the center of wagon with 8 ft high sides. 88 ,,_____ Scale .4 ‘Forage conve r Grain storage - Forage silos \ /\ x | . \ ‘f u ‘\ I l __ \ I | , t I lOverhead bins ~‘i u for ground corn \K§\\ ! and silage : \ ""_'::- ;::_--: w L—_—I Grain Scales Forage conveyor conveyor Fig. 6. Feed grain and forage storage layout for use with forage wagons 89 The lots used for forage wagon and fence line feeding are differ- ent in two respects from the forms shown with mechanical bunk feeders; one is the necessity implied in the name, that of moving the feed bunks to the outside fence line, second,especially in the more intensive lots, is the need to change the shape to give the necessary length of feed bunk. This involves a.more critical determination of the periodicity of feeding. Most authorities quote only two figures for length cf feed bunk per head, for restricted feeding, and unrestricted feeding.’ It 'would seem that there is another condition to consider, the stimulation given to the animal when it sees and hears the food being put Before it. This "come and get it” appeal may cause temporary congestion at the - feeding'bunk, even though sufficient food is provided to eventually satisfy their appetites. For this reason a precise intent must be stated about the number of daily feeding operations or else the feed'bunk length allowance should be sufficiently increased. The allowance used in the layouts (Figs. 7 and 8) is 2h in per head. This length is most easily provided in the larger unpaved lots which have a long periphery. It becomes more diffi- cult to include on smaller lots incorporated within a developed farmstead. Separation of the storage units and lot allows a simplification of lot design. Provision of adequate space, shelter and feeding facilities are the only important functions of each lot. The integration of sev- eral lots needs consideration of the necessity to provide hard all- weather roads for the forage wagon, and the amount of space needed for maneuvering a tractor and trailer combination. weapoow moan mafia oosow £uq3 mugs: uoH poem .n .mmm wcamoow asap mafia madam new when: n3 some. Saunas: .m .wE 90 Heuaosm u m '1} . l/ \l HdEHG u a rwmawmu. p moon QWHMHW “V /J fifiaflmHn out: d.mwmafimum m m m m iron L r K / / \ / \ .OQH axons poem o mxoon vmmm .L. It. L e > i [Mom .oq x .0m m m mono peeve as mouaomm bu. .06 v a x x. x (on a? W 91 Fig. 7 isa layout of two small lots which can function satis- factory as single units. It has been necessary to increase the uncovered area allowance for each animal in order to accomodate 200 linear ft of feeding'bunk. The overall dimensions of each lot are 152 ft x 50 ft including 12 ft gateway in each long side. If cattle access is provided at the rear of the shelter this gateway may'be omitted reducing the length to 140 ft and the space allocation to 66 sq ft per animal including 20 sq ft of shelter. Feed bunks have not been shown on the south fence line.‘ The turning area needed at corners is considerable and the risk of damage to structure and equipment is further increased when.maneuvering in ' restricted areas. .A further advantage is the opportunity the open end offers to allow free drainage and disposal of manure. The layout shown ‘will need some site modification with respect to shelter on the west and east. When two or>more yards are planned the 12 ft roadway between each adjacent pair is sufficient for satisfactorily operating a forage wagon and minimizes the amount of road surfacing needed. This is further ' elaborated in Fig. 8 which shows a number of lots for fence line feeding capable of considerable extension. The feed bunk is restricted to One side of the lot only, necessitating elongation of the lot and the feeding 'bunks of adjacent pairs of lots facing each other. The intervening hard surfaced road is used as the feeding lane. An open lane has also been prOvided on the side opposite to the bunk for livestock movement and as a drainage channel. It may be convenient to have additional gates to allow vehicles into the lot for removal of manure. 92 B. Horizontal Silos The prOblem of system design with horizontal silos is the neces- sity of incorporating a suitable method of integrating forage with grain and ground feeds and of conveying this to the feeding facility. The present position of equipment for unloading horizontal silos has already been discussed. There is no machine yet developed that can replace the unique combination of top or bottom unloaders and gravity. Horizontal silo unloaders, tractors with buckets on front mounted loaders for short chopped silage and.manure forks for longer hay crop silage used in conjunction with wagons or trucks have proved to be an acceptable substitute. Self feeding combines the storage component for forage with that of the feeding facility and is popular on account of low installation and operational costs. In designing layouts for horizontal silos, the planner has 3 alternatives which can be identified in terms of the ultimate form.of the feeding facility as outlined in Fig. l. l. Forage wagon. This would be a design for the permanent use of mechanical unloaders and a self propelled conveying system.using truck or tractor. 2. Conveyor bunk feeding. Designed for ultimate installation of automatic unloading and conveying equipment, and pro tem. to use equipment as in the first alternative or self feeding. 3. Self feeding. Considering the present design as temporary and expend- able, and plan for lowest first cost and maximum.immediate advantages or as a permanent self feed system. 93 Horizontal Silos. Forage Wagon and Fence Line Bunks The form of the system is identical with that of using vertical silos with forage wagons. The layout will differ only in so far that the forage store is removed from the feed grain store. A feed grain layout as illustrated in Fig. 6 will still be needed, including, in the attainment of the ideal, the overhead storage bins for ground feed and the scales but without the forage storage units. The location of the silo can be independent of the feed lots and should be chosen with most regard for its own requirements. Drainage and access for filling and emptying are the most important. As with the feeding lanes, the floor Of the silo needs paving for all weather vehicular operation. This system is most likely to be adopted for use on the larger and expanding feed lot units. In its ultimate form of complete mecha- nization the operator will be wholly engaged in selecting the ration ingredients and transporting these to the livestock. Since this opera- tion can incorporate the over looking of the livestock there would seem to be little point in further automation, although with the development of magnetic tracer tapes for industrial truck control, the elimination of the wagon driver is a practical possibility. Horizontal Silos. Conveyor Bunk Feeding This form corresponds to that of vertical silos with conveyor bunk feeding with the three functional components integrated into a compact unit. Fig. 9 shows the same layout as Fig. 3b modified for use with bunker silo. The silo in this case is oriented east-west to conform with the existing development line. A space of four feet is left 94 1 1“ N N a N N N N N N a K N t l 4Vfi Transfer auger .Drainage w Trough with auger conveyor l t T Drainage unit Control {/////’r Silo area ' 10 fi ling 4—40 ' Fig. 9. Horizontal silo. Mechanized feeding in conveyor ‘feed bunks using trough filled by tractor scoop Feed 7 1 grain 95 between the outside wall of the silo and the movement lane fence for maintenance purposes. .Access for filling is provided by leaving 40 ft clearance between the control area and the leading edge of the silo walls. (This control area may be incorporated into the feed grain.unit.) The principal operational component of this design is a trench or hopper box fitted with a drag or auger conveyor. Feed is removed from the silage face and dropped into the box, the conveyor then simulates the function of a transfia'conveyor’moving the material into control area for maxing with ground feed and thence onto the second transfer conveyor to the feed bunks.“ The hOpper Should be sufficiently large for all the forage for one feed to be dumped into it prior to feeding, which can then be done conventionally as from a vertical silo. The design of thehopper'box permits inclusion of the features discussed by Witz (1962) for’metering silage flows. The box needs to be wider at the bottom than the top, and for accurate metering the height limdted to 8 ft. Drag chains are used as the conveying mechanism and to prevent excessive chain tension exposure in the box limited to h ft depth. The width of the box is variable, but one drag chain is needed for every 6 in of width. The limiting factor to width is the need to keep the diameter of the drive shaft and its bearing requirements to sensible proportions. The material has to be chopped short and of a granular structure. By this system.the forage units and feed grain units are essentially linked together. The layout can be expanded by increasing the length of the silo, increasing the height of silage stored or build- ing a second adjacent and parallel to the first. Research by the 96 U.S.D.A. (reported by Peterson 1963) indicates that the development of an automatic silo unloader will include a silage conveyor removing silage from the cutting mechanism in a direction parallel to the longi- tudinal axis of the silo. Layout in Fig. 9 will permit the use of such a machine to maximum advantage. The silo may be oriented 90° to simulate Fig. 3b . Horizontal Silos. Self Feeding The design problem in incorporating a self feed system into a layout is that feed storage and the feeding facility must be contained within the livestock area confines. This can be done by ensiling the forage within the feed lot or extending the lot by means of movement lanes to the face of the silo. Putting silage within the lot modifies lot form by necessitating an increase in area to allow for that taken up by the silo and the changes in traffic patterns. Fig. 10 shows a simple permanent installation for about 30 milk cows or 50 beef cattle. The overall dimensions of the lot are 100 ft x 25 ft including the silo area of 25 ft x 75 ft. The silo is covered for protection to the silage and the livestock from rain and snow and to give shade in summer. The silage face is 25 ft x 6 ft high, almost too high for small beef animals. If there are small animals in the lot some hand trimming may be needed, throwing silage off the tOp behind the feed barrier until it is sufficiently low for the animals to reach. This manual operation would be done at the same time as the tap seal is removed . 97 The silo dimensions are sufficient for 50 head of young beef cattle for 12 months, continuous feeding or 30 cows. At this rate of consumption a full yard would consume a 3%; in slice of silage per day, about sufficient to prevent spoilage. If the yard numbers are substan- tially below this the face will have to be divided into two halves and a 12 ft wide slice eaten. Although this will cause molding and'waste on the exposed surface, the animals will be eating mostly unspoiled material each day. The shelter is shown as a lean-to on the high roofed silo cover. This extra height is needed when filling the silo to allow for consolidation and after ensiling can be used as storage space for hay and bedding materials. This will be thrown over the silo wall into the animal shelter as the silage is eaten. Since provision will have to be made for supplementary feeding, a fence line bunk is shown on the long side of the lot. Drainage is down the silo from the back to the front. The biggest disadvantage to the layout is poor access when filling the silo. Buckrakes with long grass or long chopped hay crop forage will be quite satisfactory, but forage wagons will require careful planning of gates and fences. A blower can be also used with forage wagons from outside the lot area. mpans ion of the facility canbe accommodated by extending the silo and shelter on the side away from the exposed face. The lot areas can however be easily duplicated as shown in Fig. 10b, in this example the silo covered by a single span building. Emailing can be simplified by having the fencing in the open yard removable, with no fence inside the silo. The silage then has a 50 ft wide face which can be allocated to each lot as the stocking rate in each demands. 98 Drainage Fill Silage ? F? Shelter ‘\\\\\' open area N\\\‘~—————.Ha)’{Ranger F8 bunk Hay or bedding i S over silage Fig. 10a. Horizontal silo. Self feed layout, with silo covered and inside lot. Hay and straw storage on top of silage Fence line “ Dra age bunk ‘ 1 Shelter Road I Road Silage with hay & bedding over Hay manger w”1 Id E ’ LJ Fig. 10b. Horizontal silo- Self feed layout of 2 lots 99 The layout shown in Fig. 11 is a temporary self feeding silo of the same design. No cover is given to the silage and the area allocated to the silo is of the same dimensions as the two adjacent lots. This layout is intended for subsequent conversion into 3 lots with conveyor bunk feeders of the same form as in.Fig. 2. .Access to the silo for filling with temporary fences at each end is excellent until the shelter is built. The lot dimensions are 40 ft x 90 ft with the longest fence line 80 ft. This is rather short for fence line feeding of supplements, self feeders may have to be used instead. The disadvantage of adding to the length of fence line bunks by using the south fence is its inter- ference with drainage. One half of this layout may be achieved by building a silo adjacent to an existing cattle'barn. The general design is most satis- factory and can be arranged to give good shelter since the silo and'barn are at right angles. Another variation is shown in.Fig. 12. Silos within lots raise prOblems if stock is to be confined in the lots for 12 months. Sufficient silage has to be made for all the year round consumption, there is the difficulty of needing to make silage in a partially emptied horizontal silo and to continue to feed simultaneously with stock in the yards. ‘With dairy cows the prOblem.can be offset by a grazing period during early summer. 'With beef animals or dairy cows green chopped forage can be fed in fence line bunks or self feeding wagons from the time that the silage is almost finished to when the new material is sufficiently ensiled. To get good results calls for a high standard of management of grass and arable silage crops. When |l Shelter 1 u _I 100 I l I I I I I Lot 1 l I I I \-__._ Fig. 11. Fig. Drainage I//:ila::\" MM r/“m- '- --:-\ “ Shelter 3 Lot‘3 v/ Temporary fence \ _====F=___=,/ 5 l Shelter Shelter 12 «r———-—-— Silage Drainage d K Fig. 11. Horizontal silo. -Temporary self feed surface-silo built between two lots for later conversion to lot /_ with conveyor bunk feeders. Fig. 12. Horizontal silo. Temporary self feed silo built in two adjacent lots 101 the self feed silo is built outside the lot area, lot design is made easier since the layout needs only an access to the silo. Fence line bunks or self feeders may be needed for supplementary feeding as in the previous case. .As a stage of development, silos external to the lot may be considered the initial stage in the use of a tractor and scoop with conveyor bunk feeders as in Fig. 9. Siting of the silo will need to conform to the same requirements. This layout modified for self feeding is shown in Fig. 13. The movement lane is utilized by the stock in walking to the silo and supplemented by temporary fencing. Stock from lots 1 and 3 start at each end and eat towards each other, lot 2 stock feed into the center of the silo at a portion where the retaining walls have been removed. It is a matter of daily adjustment whether they eat towards lot 1 or 3. Drainage slopes are important and should be toward the movement lane which also acts as a drainage channel for tractor cleaning. An excellent example of a permanent installation of self feeding for a dairy herd is shown in Fig. 14. The design is suitable for about 60 cows, the shelter is 40 ft x 50 ft and the open area 50 ft x 100 ft. Good use is made of the surrounds to the lot, although this does restrict the outlet for expansion. Cattle movement is reduced to a minimum for feeding and milking and the whole system is confined in a relatively compact area. If an increase in herd size is needed, since the open area is sufficient for up to 100 cows, additional shelter can be provided on the south side and the length of the silo increased. In this case drainage should flow to a point immediately south of the hay'barn. sub- sequent mechanization of feeding using conveyor bunk feeders will be 102 meow mus wUOH USU Ou HMfiHODKO OHHw EOHW wfiHfiUUm mUOH QUHn—U dams osqm mom unchma poem «How humuanOH coauhw >oaou Meadow 4‘: m hog ///\\. .oHaa Honoouanom .ma .mea cwosom harmonica QGNH UGQEU>OE UfiOfiM—FHON hog / 103 Shelter 4%.?» «“\~"n Collebtion area Self- feed ‘ hay i;:::;3é Self feed D:;:;;;;\\\\\‘\ silage .\ Fig. 14. Horizontal silo. Self feeding layout for dairy herd Silo Silo Movement lane // \Y/ \\ _ \ Unpaved lot Fence line bunk gngEedlng lane Fig. 15. Horizontal silo.‘ Self feeding silo for large unpaved lot 104 possible. In cold climates the position of the milking room and milk’roqn building and collecting area should be reversed to give shelter to cows waiting to be milked. Fig. 15 shows a simple self feed design for large beef feeding or dairy cow lot, but of an identical form to that of layout 14. C. Hay Hay drying, as a process of conservation, may be completed wholly in the field, either naturally by climate conditions or by using mechan- ical methods, or it may be completed at the farmstead in structures designed and built for this purpose. Whatever is used depends largely upon the weather and assumes a climatic distribution. It can be expect-_ ed that the methods of storing and feeding hay will be similarly influ- enced. Because the physical nature of hay and the inability of current commercially available equipment to completely mechanize its handling, expedients have to be used in order to obtain near achievement of the assumptions and design requirements of feed lot layout in which it is to be incorporated. Long hay may be discounted because its poor mechanical handling characteristics and high labor requirements at all stages of its making and feeding. Pelleting, in which the hay is finely ground and pelleted with other ground feeds, is used to some extent, but for the purposes of analysis in this study may be more appropriately considered as part of the feed grain component, since much of the processing plant and equipment is common to both feeds. 105 Unlike silage, hay is seldom fed as the sole source of roughage for fattening and adult cattle, although possibly for calves. It has been shown that cattle will eat good silage in preference to good hay, therefore hay consumption can to a degree be controlled by the availa- bility of alternate succulent forages. This helps the design of hay feeding systems as self feeding can be satisfactory for'most types and conditions of stock. In this way the need to meme hay from.store to feeding facility can be Obviated and those two functional components included in one structure. Self-contained, self feeding structures by eliminating the need for conveying and feeding machinery and the controls to operate them, assume the characteristics of the machines they re- place and may be thought of as being mechanized. There are 7 systems of practical.merit of conserving, storing and feeding hay: 1. Condition and store adjacent to lot, feed with conveyor feed bunks. 2. ConditiOn and store remote from.1ot and feed'with forage wagon in fence line bunks. 3. Condition remote from lot, store adjacent to or in lot or self feed or easy feedl. 4. Condition and store adjacent to or in lot and self feed or easy feed. 5. Condition in field, store adjacent to lot and feed with conveyor'bunks. 8’ 1In this context easy feed would mean throwing down hay behind a fixed or moveable feeding barrier. 106 6. Condition in field, store remote from lot, feed'with forage‘wagon. 7. Condition in field, store adjacent to lot and self feed or easy feed. These are graphically illustrated in Fig. 16. ‘With the exception of those systems using mechanical feeders, all are suited to baled, chopped or wafered hay. Baled hay cannot be used in mechanical feeders. Anticipating future developments, wafered hay may be stored in vertical structures, removed and fed using chain and flight or auger conveyors for'movement and feeding. These structures would need to be sited in close proximity to the feed grain and silage units to make use of the established distribution and feeding conveyors. Wafers could also be distributed by forage wagons and fed in fence line bunks. The optimum.shape of the storage structure, whether it includes processing or drying facilities is largely unresolved at the moment. Such a structure would need to be incorporated into the feed storage unit so that the flow of hay would converge with the material flow of other- feeds as already discussed. It may be envisaged that a round or vert- ical unit, not unlike a corn or small grain silo, with conditioning equipment would be used and this may be sited close to the silage or feed grain units. Chopped hay, being considerably bulkier would need larger buildings for the same weight of wafered hay. This will increase the concentration of buildings in one area to connect all of them to a common conveying system. It may'be noted though, that feeding hay will reduce the quantities of silage needed and the number of silos. 107 he: wawvmmm pom ¥ hm; wouafis madam wawuoum mo maoumhm Hmoauomum .oH .mam mwmuoum was waw%un mmamn no: xcon mafia modem comma owmuom poem «How owmuoum .mm m 0 use vam.. H n u z muoum hum wawmhn _ \ki 1|; uo%o>aou Fr, owmnoum mmamn uoz poem «How . pom muoum Moon mafia modem ,- monn no: owmuoum comes mmmuom >m: vogue vamwm 108 Fig. 17 suggests how these hay structures may be incorporated into the feed storage units. In other respects the lot design is the same form as in Fig. 3. The additional buildings will cast more shade and their siting needs especial consideration. Hay dried and stored away from the feed lot and fed by forage wagon in fence line bunks (systems 2 and 6, p 105, 106) has the same requirements as for silage feeding outlined in the layouts in Figs. 7 and 8. The remaining systems (3, 1+ and 7, p. .105, 106) require a structure in the lot area or on the periphery. Its shape and form may be determined by the method of self feeding. Either the animals consume their way through the stored forage which remains stationary or the cattle feed from a fixed position and the stored forage moves to them. The first method usually involves a flat structure, the second a vertical structure. Where the structure may be included with the shelter or bedded area, its extension may be the only change needed to fit the examples of layouts already presented. Fig. 18a shows a small lot for about 30 cows. Baled hay is stored behind a fixed feed bunk and easy fed into a fixed manger which is so positioned that no feeding is done inside the building to cause a disturbance to cattle lying down. This is an excellent layout for a small unit with controlled feeding of hay. It needs adequate shelter area and a higher building than normally required for cattle only. Furthermore, it is limited to hay dried in the field or conditioned at an intermediate location. 109 1 -Movement lane EN Transfer .\ conveyor : ‘ Q 'Feed grain : unit N '\ Chopped : hay N storage E Si 1 rand 1 0 condition- : ing ’ E N. e E. Fig- 17a. Chopped hay. A suggested layout of conditioning and storage unit for use in conjunction with conveyor bunk feeders I Movement Lane , . * 'F -\ \f N. ‘Feed grain unit Hay silage wafers condit- -ioning & .am'msei Fig. 17b. Wafered hay. A suggested layout of storage structures with silos and feed grain unit for feeding in conveyor bunks 110 nouamnm xUOumowa cw ... . , tumoum has poem «How .an swam xasn mafia modem seeneem modem manmo>oa Apommoao no pmamnv mwum mmmuoum mm: eases seem sexes and“ vow Mohammm xooumo>ga cwnuwa muscum he: vamm "Hun UH .sss semen seem: .swe .wee xssn mafia modem owmawmua A oHHm poem waom mono po>mm fl xcon,pooh muoum mm: ououm wcwvvmm 111 The layout in Fig. 18 shows hay fed at the rear of the cattle shelter behind a moveable fence. The hay may be baled or chopped, self fed or easy fed. The shelter area has been increased by the amount need- ed to store the hay, otherwise the design is the same as in.Fig. 7. The disadvantage of this method of feeding hay is the traffic that must pass through what is a loafing area. It would be serious if the feeding face 'were limited to a particular portion of the shed, thus increasing the movement to and from this place. By providing a large exposed feeding area the passing of cattle through the shelter does appear to be serious. A similar method of feeding hay was discussed in connection with the layout in.Fig. 13. The relative size of hay feeding facilities and shelter’may'be reversed by making the shelter a lean-to or an addition to a hay conditioning and self feeding structure. This has the merits of hay handling being reduced to the minimum. It is more suitable for farms where a large proportion of the roughage is fed as hay. Hay storage and feeding structures, with conditioning equipment can be placed on the periphery of the lot fence as shown in.Figs. 15 and 19. Both these are designed more particularly for the dairy cow, and are good examples of their type being extremely easy and economical to work in and providing all the facilities that are needed. Their most serious disadvantage is the limited expansion that is possible. 'With'buildings on three sides, and the needs of drainage being met on the fourth, the maximum expansion has to be built into the design at its inception. This is not so difficult with dairy cows since expansion of 112 I ' I Straw °\ Maternity Hay storage ' I 7 and calf l _ , pens ' '" \ storage Straw This fence a Food I \ store l .moveable L _ - J.-- _ Iry cows &'young stock Silage 10 mo-fresh Cows i Fig. 19. Self feed hay barn in layout for dairy herd 113 the herd requires extra capacity from the milking plant as well as feeding and housing which places more restriction on growth than is to be found in a'beef enterprise. To relieve the perimeter of the lot for fence line feed bunks, the hay structure may be placed on the common short fence line between adjacent lots. The form.of layout in Fig. 8 with a self feeder hay 'barn included is shown in.Fig. 20. In this example each half of the hay barn has a capacity of 50 tons, it may be increased by extending the length. Singley (1963) describes a hay barn suited to this purpose. A single portable drying unit may be used to condition hay in two or'more barns depending on storage capacity and the output of the dryeru For cpntinuous feeding it is necessary to have each half of the barn divided into at least two sections to allow one section on each side to be filled and drying, as the other sections are open for feeding. In small lots of limited capacity, vertical self feeders for chopped or wafered hay, including conditioning equipment, may be placed ‘within the lot area. The effective diameter of these units will be about 18 ft greater than the actual diameter of the cylinder or structure and, given adequate open area, these units do not require special consid; eration in the design of the layout. For continuous hay feeding two such units will be needed, one to be functional while the other is filling and drying. Alternatively green forage may be fed in fence line bunks if these are incorporated in the yard,or portable self feeding wagons or racks may be used for a time. Other portable self feeding racks and wagons are for the most part used in lots as conveniences and expedients. 114 \/ [If-— Movement lane 88 6 hay ed Capac i ty each \ barn 100 tons L... /\ .barns Fence line b unk 1 drying unit to serve both hay 75 head capacity \ Fig. 20. Self feed hay barns in feed lots with fence line feeding bunks VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Mechanization can be credited with effecting a significant improvement in the working conditions of present day farms by reducing or removing physical effort and drudgery, as well as by aiding a.more effective employment effort. Livestock production, however, has not kept pace with the efficiency in crop production. ‘While total produc- tion per man.hour increased 6.h$ per year in the decade prior to 1958, the increase in livestock products was 3.6% and in meat animals only lfi. This disproportionate improvement in productivity identifies the need for a careful study of farmstead operations, where the feeding of and caring for livestock are centered. Studies of forage harvesting techniques showed that there are many improvements to be made in current practices which will lead to the preservation of more and better quality forage. The losses involved in hay making are often much more than is usually supposed. Dry matter loss is not the best criterion since soluble nutrients may be leached out by rain. Hay making may be speeded by crushing or laceration of the stems ‘with final drying completed with.mechanical conditioning systems. The conservation and mechanical handling prOblems of hay are not yet complete- ly solved, and although it is still regarded as having unique dietary qualities it was found that many farmers are now making little or no dry hay and intend to feed all their forages as silage. 115 116 Silage making and feeding can be more effectively mechanized than hay. It caters for a wide variety of crops, is relatively independent of weather, and the equipment that is needed is commercially made. The choice of silo is largely a matter of preference and capital, the least expensive bunker or trench silos have the highest conservation losses. Chopping finely was advantageous in all silos. Livestock showed a preference for higher dry matter silage and thereis some evidence that it is used at higher efficiencies than wetter material. The storage of high moisture corn and small grains has recently become an established practice. ‘Ihe ensiling process is simple provided care is taken to exclude air. It is supposed that air tight .lstorages are the most successful, but no data is available on losses in amt type of silo. In the planning of feed lots to include any or all of these forages, the design can be divided into 3 functional components. 1. Feed storage. 2. Feeding facility. 3. Livestock area. Feed storage includes the storage units for forage, feed grains, and the preparation and blending of the food items. The feeding facility is the method and manner in. which food is presented to the livestock. The conveying system is the means of integrating the feed store with the feeding facility, and can be considered as belonging to either canponent. The livestock area includes the lot area, shelter or loafing barn, water and the essential physical requirements, drainage and manure disposal, 117 orientation, facilities for handling cattle. In any feed lot all these components are present. Two or’more may be associated in one structure. In the development of a feed lot system, planning must always be based on the situation as it exists before the change and must allow for transition as experience and economic investment will allow. It is important to avoid too drastic a change, since this may involve too much risk or need too much capital for the change to be taken at all. Planning should allow for the system to be capable of the maximum.practical mechanization. In this instance the limit of mechanization is taken to be complete automation, and labor used for program.planning. Planning also must consider the antic- ipated and possible development, not only of the particular enterprise but also of the farmstead and the farming policy. Immoveable permanent structures once built dictate the orientation of other permanent fix- tures around them and can determine the ultimate layout of the feed lot and farmstead . The design requirements of forage storage and feeding systems include: 1. .Adaptable to more than one class of livestock, allowing for as wide a use of the equipment and facilities as possible. 2. Flexible to accomodate changes in feeding practices and techniques of forage conservation. 3. Compact so that material flows from forage and grain feed storage units converge at a focal point, where the material.may be mixed, weighed or'blended. This is a.most important consideration'when.planning 118 for complete mechanization. h. Capable of expansion for'both planned growth and the increase that is possible due to improved methods and greater efficiency of work habits and management. 5. Designed for complete mechanization so that ”man time is used first to think and last for power." Two things to note are that man time, being made available by the use of machinery, is used wisely, and that mechanization does not take away the opportunity of the stock man to inspect his charges. 6. Plan for linear development to make the best use of mechanie cal conveyors. These machines convey in straight lines, plan the storage structures so that they can always be emptied on to a single conveyor serving all the other storage units. .A general but not inviolable rule is to avoid Obstructing the projection of any mechanical conveyor. There are other restrictions on the design of feed lots which have a specific bearing on the plan: 1. Drainage. 5. Animal handling facilities. 2. Cleaning and manure disposal. 6. Paved areas. 3. Orientation. 7. Shelter. h. Lot size. The best plan is one which fits into the farmstead situation most suited to it and derives the most benefit from the t0pography of the locality. This could lead to each farm system being unique, but when planning a layout, the task is simplified if a common form or pat- tern can be identified and used, suitably modified for the particular location and conditions. 119 The feed lot system layouts, planned with consideration for the future, are in the main intended for use with equipment and machinery that is now available, for it is at this tume that guidance is needed in establishing the optimum procedures in this present phase of expansion. The structures used for ensiling may be considered as vertical or horizontal. There is no best one in the sense that each has its own peculiarities which make it most suited to a given set of conditions. Vertical silos only can'be fully mechanized; they can be used singly or added to when.more storage is needed; and they can be used to ensile all the common materials presently used for livestock feeding. Horizontal silos are cheaper to build, can easily be used for self feeding, but no machine has yet been developed for automatic unloading, (although manually operated mechanical silo unloaders can be used) and they are limited in the range and condition of materials that can be ensiled. The systems plan for all the feed storage to be contained in one composite unit. These units are not placed in the lot, since this restricts access for filling and adds to the difficulty of drainage and manure disposal. They may be moved to the most suitable location around the periphery of the lot, or away from the lot if a forage wagon is used for feeding. The control center for the system should be installed next to the storage unit. .A simple cover'will give protection to the equip- ment and help induce good working habits. A forage wagon includes the function of a versatile and flexible conveyor. Its use in feeding operations simplifies the integration of 120 the functional components, but an essential requirement is that all roads and turning areas need to be hard surfaced for all-weather opera- tions. The continuous use of a low capacity silo unloader accumulating silage in an overhead bin should be considered for large operations instead of a high capacity machine used for short frequent intervals. The inclusion of horizontal silos in feed lot layouts .introduces the prOblem of incorporating a satisfactory way of integrating forage with grain and ground feeds and conveying this to the feeding facility. A forage wagon with fence line bunks is one solution and is likely to be increasingly adopted'by larger and expanding enterprises. Self-feeding offers many possibilities for including existing farmstead structures in a permanent or developing layout. The storage and feeding of hay still presents a challenge on account of its intractable physical condition, whether it be baled, chopped or wafered. Chopping hay allows a greater degree of mechaniza- tion in field and feed lot. Self feed structures, by eliminating the need for conveying and feeding machinery and the controls to operate them, assume the characteristics of the machines they replace and may be considered as mechanized units. IX. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES The successful solution of materials handling prOblems is not the prerogative of one discipline, but is the outcome of collaboration of all those with interests in the common subject. In the design of feed lot systems nutrition chemists can contribute information on the produc- tion response of cattle when fed forages of different qualities and harvested by different methods, which will lead to the selection of the optimum material quality and condition. More data are needed from the agronomists on the most efficient methods of forage conservation in terms of the highest livestock production per unit of farm land. Accurate cost and price coefficients for input and output data are required to determine relative costs of machinery and equipment use in the selection of alternative systems. The engineering contribution may take the form of a general consideration of the system or the study of a specialized area. Studies of general consideration include: 1. The development of standard procedures and outputs for forage harvesting. 2. Further consideration to the development of standardized feed lot layouts. 3. An analysis of farm.feed lot installations from the standpoint of the design requirements stated in this thesis. 121 122 h. A study of the maximum stock carrying capacity of feed lot systems determined by the limiting output of the forage harvesting and feeding machinery. S. A determination of the minimum feed lot capacity in relation to capital investment in the essential machinery and equipment. More specialized studies are needed in: 6. The methods and systems for handling and disposing of manure. 7. The standard of mixing of ground feed and forage achieved in forage wagons and auger conveyors. 8. The distribution of feed in conveyor bunks. 9. Methods of filling vertical silos. REFERENCES Aldrich, R. A. . 1961 . Albert,‘W. 1960. Anon . 1961a. Anon. 1961b. Anon . 1961c. Armstrong, 1962 . Barnes, K. 195%. Physical facilities required for feeding cattle. Michigan State Univ. Agric. Eng. Spec. Pub. Ext. Inf. Ser. #51. File No. 18.111. 6 p.’ E., Mitchell, G. E., Zimmerman, J. E., Neuman, A. L. Comparative value of ground ear and shelled corn when fed to beef heifers in high moisture and dry form. Univ. of Illinois. Mimeo report. 2 p. Bunker silo cover saves feed. Agric. Res. U.S.D.A. 9 (11) p. 5- Moisture; its effect on alfalfa in a gas tight silo. Agric. Res. U.S.D.A. 10 (3) p.7. Research on high moisture barley. Univ. of Minnesota. North West School news. XLV (2) April - June. p. 1,2,11» D. L., Shanchrs, E. T., Sitterly, J. H. Synthesis of optimum forage handling systems for a one man dairy farm. J. Dairy Sci. us (7) p. 865 - 871. K., Beresford, H. Self feeding of chopped hay. Agric. Eng. 35(8) Aug. p.551-553 Beeson, W. M., Parry, T. W., Hennold, R. E. 1956.. High moisture ground ear corn vs regular ground ear corn with and without antibiotics for fattening steers. Perdue Univ. Agric. Expt. Stat. Mimeo A.H. 169 h p. Belshaw, D. G. R., Scott, A. H. 1963. Flaming methods to improve fem incomes. Univ. of Cambridge Farm Econ. Branch. Tech. Rept. (work study) *2. 26 p. Brevik, T. J.,-Friday, w. M., Maddex, R. L. undated . Horizontal silos. Mich. State Coll. Ext. Ser. Farm Building C. 723. 12 p. Brodell, A. P., Phillips, H. C. 1957. Silage from 1955 crops. U.S.D.A. Statistical Bull. No. 217. 123 121+ Brooks, L. A. 1957. Characteristics of an electrified experimental farm. Paper submitted to A.I.E.E. Farm Elec. Conf. Minneapolis, Minn. Oct. 29 - 31. 12 p. Brown, L. D. 1961. Hay 8c silage studies with dairy cattle. Mich. State Univ. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Bruhn, H. D. 1955. Status of hay crusher development. Ag. Mg. 36 (3) Mar. p. 165 - 17o Bruhn, H. D. 1957. Engineering problems in pelletized feeds. Agric. Eng. 38 (“July p. 522 - 525. Bruhn, H. D. 1959. Factors in the performance of forage conditioning equipment. A.S.A.E. paper no. 59 - 130. 12 p. Bnlhn, H. D., Zimmerman, A., Niedermier, R. P. 1958. Developments in pelleting forage crops. Paper presented at A.S. A. E. winter Meeting. Dec. Agric. mag. ho (h) April. p. 201+ - 207. Buckingham, F 1962- Selecting a silo unloader. World Farming 1+(1) p. 1h - 21 Clayton, J. T., Kleis, R. W., Gaunt, S. N. 1960. Farmstead engineering for dairy farms. Univ. of Mass. Coop. Ext. Ser. Pub. 351. 27 p. Comerford, P. . 1963. Feed parameters for materials handling design. Mich. State Univ. unpublished M.S. thesis. Culbertson, C. C., Burroughs, W., Chang, E., Hammond, W. E., 1957. High moisture vs. low moisture corn for fattening cattle receiving supplements. Iowa State Coll. Ag. Expt. Stat. A. H. leaf. 222 10 p. Decker, M. 1960. Unloading silos mechanically. Agric. Eng. 1+1 (6) June p 378 - 380 Decker, M. . 1962. Silo unloaders for horizontal silos. Kansas State Univ. Agric. Eng. Dept. Progr. Rept. 57. 10 p. 125 Decker, M., Reece, F. H., Hodges, T. O. 1963. Power requirements for vertical silo unloader components. Kansas State 'Univ. Dept. Agric. Eng. Rept. of Progr. no. 72 10 p. DeForest, s. s., Forth, u. w., 1958. How to start planning a materials handling system. Successful farming 59 (6) Sept. #3 - 1+7 Doane Agricultural Service Inc. 1959. Introduction to linear programing. Doane Agric. Digest 22(11). 1 p. Dobie, J. B., Jones, L. G., Zscheile, F. P. 1958. Alfalfa hay quality. California Agric. 7(h) p. h, 13 Duffee, F. W., Bruhn, H. D., Rather, N. 19th. Mow drying of hay shows promise. Wisconsin Agric. Expt. Stat. Bull. h65. p. 15 - 1+7 I'Zhlbry, L. B., Goodlich, R. D., Whetzal, F. W., McCone, W. C. 1960a. Cattle feeding and digestion trials with alfalfa stored in air tight and concrete stave silos. S. Dakota State Coll. A. H. mimeo, series, 61 - 5. 10 p. Embry, L. B. , Hoelscher, M. A., McCone, W. C. 1960b. Alfalfa brome grass haylage for suer feeding of yearling steers. S. Dakota Agric. Expt. Stat. Anim. Husb. Dept. Rep. prepared for Annual Beef Cattle Day. Jan. 6. 5 p. Evans, R. E. 1961. Rations for livestock. Ministry of Agric. , Fish 8: Food bulletin 1+8. (3.14.3.0. London) 15 ed. 13h p. Farm Economics Research Division 1957. Changes in farm production efficiency. U.S.D.A. ARS Bull. 1‘3 - 55. Farmer, P. 1963. The feeding value of haylage. Agriculture 70(1) Jan. 31+ - 36 Ferris, J. N., Hoglund, C. R. 1962. Implications of changing demand, technology and goverment programs on livestock and crop trends. Paper presented at Mich. State Univ. Forage Symposium. March 22. p. l - 27 126 Finner, M. F. 1962. DevelOpment of mechanical equipment for removing chopped hay from storage. Univ. of Wisconsin Agric. Expt. Stat. Rept. on Project 11117, contributing project to N.C. 1+8. Finner, M. F. 1963. Personal communication. Fischer, J. . 1962. fillet breakage in pneumatic systems. A.S.A.E._paper 62 - 929 presented at Winter Meeting, Chicago. Dec. 9 p. Frederick, E.C., Reimer, D., Kolari, O. E., Auhan, W. J., Hanson, L. E. 1962. High moisture ensiled barley for fattening steers, Univ. of Minnesota, Northwest School 8: Expt. Stat. C.B. 4+ 6p. Gordon, C. H. 1961. Potentials of low moisture hay crop silage. Proc. Nat. Silo Assn. h9th‘Ann. Conv. Gordon, c. H., Derbyshire, J. c., Melin, c. G., Kane, E. A., Sykes, J. F, Black, D. F. 1960- The effect of wilting on the feeding value of silages. U.S.D.A. ARS Bull. an - 76. Gordon, C. H., Derbyshire, J. C., M’cCaJmont, J. R., Moore, L. A., 1961. Making low moisture silage in regular tower silos. U.S.D.A. ABS B1111. Ml - 101 8 D. Hall, 0. w. 1957, Drying farm crops. Edward Bros., Inc. Ann Arbor, Mich. 343 p. Hall, 0. w. _ 1958. Theoretical considerations in materials handling systems. Agric. Eng. 39 (9) Sept. p. 52h - 529. Hansen, H. J. 1952. A chOpped hay conveyor and distributor. Cornell Univ. unpub. M.S. thesis. Hartsock, J. G., Larsen, R. E. 1958. Gutter cleaner and silo unloader tests. Minnesota Agric. Expt. Stat. Misc. J. Ser. no. 980. 1+ p. Wig, H. B. . 191+2. The effect of dew on the curing of hay. Jour. Amer. Soc. Aaron. 3"". P. 1‘82 - (+85. 127 Harvey, N. 1963. Fitting in self feeding. Agriculture 70(1) Jan. p. 30 - 33 Heath, M. E. 1961. Forage dynamics in soil conservation. J. Soil and Water Cons. no. 16. 'p. 105 - 110 Heege, H. 1961. Characteristics of mechanical silage distributors for feed bunks. Mich. State Univ. Agric. Eng. Dept. unpub. report on project no. 52h. Higbee, E. , 1963. Farms and farmers in an urban age. The Tnntieth Cent. Fund New York. Hillman, D. 1959. Appetite studies on dairy cattle. Grass vs hay. Mich State Univ. unpub. H1.D. thesis. Hillman, D., Finley, W. L., Maddex, R. L. undated. Materials handled per animal. Mich. State Univ. Agric. Eng. Dept. File 18.1 Inf. Ser. #7. 1+ p. Hoglund, C. R. 1962. Evaluating the economics of alternative forage crops for the farm business. Mich. State Univ. Dept. Agric. Econ. Ag. Econ. 873. 13 p. Hoglund, R. B., Wright, K. r. 1962. Dairy farming in southern Michigan. Mich. State Univ. Dept. Agric. Econ. report prepared for use at Dairy Schools, Nov., Dec., and Jan. 1963. 17 p. Holmes, E. S., Harrison, D. J., Skinner, T. C. 1959, Silage processing equipment and structures for Florida. Univ. of Florida Agric. Ext. Ser. Bull. 173. 19 p. Jeffers, J. 1962. Automatic horizontal silos. Farm.Quart. 17 (3) Fall p 88 127 - 133 Kampe, D. F., Herum, F. L. 1960. A vertical elevator for both granular and fibrous material. A.S.A.E. paper no. 60 - 808 presented at Winter Meeting, Memphis, Tenn. 128 ICLeis, R. W. 1957. An analysis of systems and equipment for handling materials on Michigan livestock farms. Mich. State Univ. unpub. Ph.D thesis Kleis, R. W., Wiant, D. E. 1960. Materials handling - methods and labor requirements. Agric. Eng. 3(2) Feb. p. 1&0 - rue, 11m Kline, R. G., McPherson, W. W. 1958. Choice of forage crops and methods of storage and economic analysis. North Carolina Ag. Expt. Stat. Tech. Bull. 130 6h p. Konneker, P. A. 1955, Silage distributors. Univ. Illinois, Dept. Agric. Eng. Rural Elect. no. 7 2 p. Lambert, A. J. 1960. Planning combinations of dairy chore methods and equipment with linear programming. Mich. State Univ. unpub. M.S. thesis. Larrabee, W. L., Sprague, M. A. 1957, Preservation of forage nutrients as silage in gas tight enclosures of polyvinyl chloride plastic. J. Dairy Science to (7) 800 - 809 Larsen, R. E. 1962. Traffic patterns of animals, pe0ple, vehicles, feed and materials. Univ. of Illinois Agric. Eng. Dept. Paper presented at the Farmstead Planning and Mechanization Workshop. Dec. 1+ - 6. Lehmann, E. W., Reed, R. M., Burleson, W. L., Duncan, G. H. 1931, Animal Report. Illinois Ag. Expt. Stat. p. 208 - 211 Lewis, H. A. undated. The mechanism of livestock production. Paper prepared for Saskatchewan Univ. Farm and Home Week. c. 1960. h p. Luddington, D. C. 1960. A system for handling chopped hay. Cornell Univ. Agric. Eng. Dept. mimeo report. 9 p'. McCalmont, J. R. 1956. Bunker silos. U.S.D.A. Bull. M9 8 p. McCullough, M. E. 1962. Silage for dairy cattle. Proc. Nat. Silo. Assoc. 50th Ann. Conv. p. 113 - 133. 129 McHardy, F. V 1959. Materials handling system design. Paper presented at A.S.A.E. Winter Meeting Chicago, Ill. Dec. Trans. A.S.A.E. M1) p. 81 - 81+ McKee, .D. E. 1961. Discussion: contributions, shortcomings and potential improvements in linear programing solutions. J. Fam Econ. 1+3 (2) #01 - h8ll McKenzie, B.A. 1958. The development of grain feed systems for livestock farms. Mich. State Univ. unpub. M.S. thesis. McKibben, J. S. , 1962 Mechanical removal of chopped hay from storage. Um. of Missouri Agric. Expt. Stat. Rept. of Project #10, contributing project to N.C. 1+8. Maddex, R. L. p 1957. Concrete stave silos as a storage for high moisture corn. Mich‘. State Univ. Agric. Eng. Dept. Ext. Inf. Ser. 29 File 18 - 153 5 p. Maddex, R. L. , 1960. A framework for materials handling. Paper presented at Mithigan section A.S.A.E. Meeting. 6 May. 5 p. Maddex, R. L. 1962. Corn handling. Mich. State Univ. Agric. Eng. Dept. Co. Agent File 18.15 Infor. Ser. 1&9. 6 p. Maddex, R. L., Hoglund, C. R. 1962. Equipment and systems for forage harvesting and handling. Paper presented at Mich. State Univ. Forage Symposium. March 22.8 p. Mason, R. H. 1961 Mechanizing livestock production. Agric. Eng. 1+2 (12) Dec. p. 676 - 679, 687. Matson, W. E., Zuroske, C. H. 1962. Materials handling on livestock farms. Annual Report Washington Farm Electrification Committee. p. h.l - 11.13 Mellard, D. 1961, Materials handling in agriculture. Nat. Agric. Advis. Serv. Quart. Rev.(H.M.S.O. London) 13 (54) Winter p. 82 ‘-,- 85 130 Midwest Plan Service 1963_ Beef equipment plans. Midwwt Plan Service no. 6. Iowa State Univ. Ames, Iowa. 71 p. (Mielock, P. J. 1960. Guide for beef feeding layouts. Mich. State Univ. Agric. Eng. Spec. Pub. Ext. Inf. #37. 2 p. Millier, v. F. 1958, Belt-tube elevator for chopped forages. Farm Research Dec. p. 8 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1960, How to make grass silage. Advisory leaflet l+82. H.M.S.O. London. 6 p. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1961a, Wilting for Silage. Advisory leaflet 509. H.M.S.O. London. it p. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1961b. Silage. Bulletin 37. H.M.S.O. London. 1L3 p. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1961c, Cattle yards. Fixed equipment for the farm leaf. 22 H.M.S.O. London. 23 p. Mitchell, F. 8., Shepperson, G. 1955. Can hay be made more quickly. Fm. Impl. Rev. London 80 p. 1998 - 2000 Morrison, F. B. 1956. Feeds and feeding. 22nd ed. Morrison Bib. Co. Ithaca, New York. 11145 p. Morrison, 8. H. undated. Grain feeding. Reprinted from Feed Lot. h p. Mudd, C. H. 1963, Wilting for silage. Agriculture 70 (h) April p. 17h - 176. National Agricultural Advisory Service 1959, Methods of making silage with forage harvesters. Tech. Rept. 11. Min. of Agric. Fish 8: Food, London. 55 p. Neidermeier, R. P. 1960. Direct cut vs wilted silage. Proc. Nat. Silo Assoc. 131 Oxley, T. A., Hyde, M. B. 1955, Recent experiments on hermetic storage of wheat. Proc. 3rd Int. Bread Cong. Hamburg. p. 179 - 182 Psart, R. M., Isaacs, G. W., French, C. E. 1963. Optimizing materials handling systems by mathematical Progminge A.S.A.E. Trans. 6 (1)Pe 26 - 31 Parry, T. W., Beeson, W. M., Mohler, M. T. 1962, Two types of haylage fed with two levels of corn and two levels of protein supplement to yearling beef steers. Purdue Univ. Agric. Expt. Stat. Res. Prog. Rep. 11+ Peterson, D. R. 1962, Cutter unit for horizontal silo unloader. A.S.A.E. paper no. 62 - 806. presented at the Winter Meeting, Chicago, Ill. Pick, a. D. 1963‘ Baby beef from easy feed silage. Agriculture 70 (2) Feb. 'p. ‘71 ' 73 Pinches, H. E. 1956 Management engineering in agriculture. Agric. Eng. 37 (11) NOV. p. 711.7- 750 Poinroy, J. H., Otis, C. K., Larsen, R. E. 1961. Scale model techniques for evaluating materials handling systems for barns. Univ. of Minnesota Dept. Agric. Eng. Finalhgeport of project 1215 RS, contributing prOject to N.C. Pratt, G. L., Watson, C. A., Promersberger, W. J. 1961. High moisture barley storage. Univ. of N. Dakota Agric. Expt. Stat. Reprint 5hr (frail Farm Res. 21 (10) Mar - April 1961 p. ’4 - 8.) Rees, D. V. Mo, MitCheJ-l, F. S. ' 1951+. Dept. Note DN/5h/32 Nat. Inst. Ag. Eng., England Roberts, w. J. 1961. Value of recirculation for drying. Paper presented at Northeastern Hay Drying Assoc. March 21+. Ross, I. J. 1957. Analysis of a farm materials handling system. Purdue Univ. Ind. unpub.. M.S. thesis. Ross, I. J. 1962. The place of engineering in farmstead flow problems. Paper presented at A.S.A.E. Winter Meeting, Dec. 132 Schneider, E. C. 1955, Conveyor feeding system for dairy cows in stanchion and in loose housing. Univ. of Vermont Agric. Expt. Stat. Bull. 586 16 p. Schnieder, E. C. 1957. Conveyor feeding system for dairy cows in stanchion and in loose housing. Univ. of Vermont Agric. Expt. Stat. Bull. 605 22 p. Schulz, A. H. l 1960, Basic requirements for beef cattle, housing and handling Agric. Eng. #1 (9) Sept. p. 615 - 617 % Seale Hayne Agricultural College, Devon, England. i‘ undated, Output equations. Workstudy dept. mimeo report. “ Seferovich, G. H. 1958. Handling materials on farms. Agric. Eng. 39 (9) Sept. p 518 - 523 Sheppers on, G. 1956. The storage of chopped hay. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1(2) Shepperson, G. 1958. The value of drying hay on racks and in the barn. Agricultural Review 3 (8) Aug. p.39 - 1‘5 Shepperson, G. 1958. The artificial drying of baled hay, parts I and II J. Agric. Eng. Res. 3 (2) p. 153 - 186. (3) p. 211+ - 225 Shepperson, G. , Wright, W 1957, Bale handling with front- and rear-mounted buck rakes. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 2 (3) p. 285 - 287 Shove, G. C. 1957, A self feeding hay keeper- Iowa State Coll. Coop. Ext. Ser. Pam. 239 2 p. Singley, M. E. 1963 An experimental self feeding livestock farm. Paper presented at A.S.A.E. Annual Meeting Florida June 23 - 26 Slack, S. T., 1961. Silage for dairy herds. Proc. Nat. Silo Assoc. h9th Ann. Conv. 133 Sturrock, F. G. 1960. Flaming farm work. Min. of Agric. Fish 8: Food Bull 172 H.M.S.O. London. 135 p. Swanson, E. R. 1961. Linear programming approach to the solutions of practical problems in farm management and micro agricultural econcmics. J. Farm Econ. #3 (2) p. 386 - 392 Turk, R. L., Morrison, S. H., Norton, C. L., Blaser, R. E. 1951, Effect of curing methods upon the feeding value of hay. Cornell Ag. Expt. Stat. Bull. 871+. 31 p. Van Arsdall, R. N. 1957. The economics of barnyard mechanization. Undated reprint Implement and Tractor. Van Arsdall, R. N. 1961. Economic justification for livestock mechanization. Trans. of A.S.A.E. h (1) p. 116 - 118 Voelker, H., Bartle, E. undated. Haylage feeding trials with dairy cattle. Report of trial at South Dakota Coll. of Agric. Warner, J. H. 1960. Silage feeding systems for cattle. Proc. Nat. Silo Assoc. h8th Ann. Conv. Warner, J. H. 1962. Silage for beef cattle. Proc. Nat. Silo Assoc. 50th Ann. Conv. p. 135 - 159 Watson, 8. J., Nash, M. J. 1960. The conservation of grass and forage crops. Oliver 8: Boyd Edinburgh. 757 p. Weaver, Jr., J. W. undated. Lower costs with the covered wagon baled hay drying system. North Carolina State Coll. Agric. Big. mimeo report. Weaver, Jr., J. W., Blum, G. B. 1962. Methods of loading hay fran a baler for wagon drying. A.S.A.E. paper no. 62 - h5, presented at Annual Meeting, , Washington D. C. June. 131+ weeks, S. A., Kleis, R. w. 1962, Mechanized handling of ch0pped hay within storage. Univ. of Mass. Apic. mcpt. Stat. Bull. 531. ,11 p. Werner, G. - 1960. Experiences with wilted silages. Proc. Nat. Silo Assoc. 1+8th Ann. Conv. Werner, G. 1961, Low moisture silage in conventional silos. Univ. of Wisconsin. Mimeo 7/61. Wilson, E. B. 1963. Your feed lot. Pacific Northwst Coop. Ext. Pub. 53 15 p. Witz, R. L. 1962, The use of flat bottomed self unloading bins for metering grain, hay and silage. A.S.A.E. paper no. 62 - 805 presented at Winter Meeting, Chicago, Ill. Dec. 13. Witz, R. L. 1963, Personal communication. North Dakota State Univ. .APPENDIX A1 - RECOMMENDED FEED LOT AREAS AND FEED BUNK LENGTHS Schultz37: M.A.F.F.1O3 1960 1961b Matson & Zuroske 1962 Covered area sq ft below 600 lbs over 600 lbs mature cows Lot area paved sq ft below 600 lbs ) over 600 lbs ) mature cows Unpaved sq ft below 600 lbs ) over 600 lbs ) mature cows ) Bunk limited access lin. in per head below 600 lbs over 600 lbs mature cows Bunk unlimited access lin. in per head below 600 lbs ) over 600 lbs ) mature cows ) Self feed lin. in per head : 50 15 - 15 - 2O - m- ‘200 - 25 25 35 50 7O #00 18 2h 28 15 - 2O 25 - 30 : ho - 50 de horned 15 - 20 ) de horned O .9 100 no cover )100 with cover )200 without cover )18 no cover* )12 covered'bunk ) 8 in ( h feeds : ) per day ) *Adjusted by formula C = H61 + %(x-m 20 corrected capacity basic capacity no feedings per day Mielock 'wilson105 : Aldrich . .M.W.D.S.lo7 : Harvey108 1960 1963 1961 : 1963 - 1963 : ) 20 : ) 20 15 - 20 : ) : ) 20 - 25 : = 25 - 30 3o : )35 - 50 = ) 3o 15 : )including : ) 2O 30 cover ° 50 : 200 70 - 100 : :without cover 100 - 150 : ° ° 250 - 350 : ) : ) z ) 21+ : 18 ' 22 : )18 - 2h : ) 2h : ) 22 - 26 : ) : ) : 26 - 30 = 6(more : ) : 6(more :)h - 6 hay or silage : than 2 : ) 12 : than 2 :)3 - h grain or suppl. : feedings) : ) : feedings) :)6 grain 8: silage 3 1* 3 9" silage : 136 L $- ) . p u ‘. 4 1 .~ ' 5.. £15-“; MICHIGAN STATE UNIVER ITY LIB I III III slllllllmfllllm 3 1193 03012 4431