__ — -- _- W E __..-_ , _
I- .-.....«.'~c.. -... u . . .. .o ...0 cc. I . c-««~~...nvo.o-onog‘,”¢.omW¢o'.'.'—1.‘..Qmo.mm.mwfi

A METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ON
MICHIGAN FARMS USING FARM RECORDS

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
.FREDERICK WILLIAM HALL
1975

ABSTRACT

A METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ON MICHIGAN FARMS
‘USING FARM RECORDS

by

Frederick William Hall

A.methodology using farm records was developed to collect energy use
data from the major types oijichigan farms. Records used in the study
were the Michigan Telfarm Records from.which a limited sample were selected
for the pilot study. From the comparison of fertilizer inputs provided by
the records, Nitrogen was found to be the largest single input across all
farms. The gallons of fuel consumed per acre for all farm uses were greater
than expected. By enlarging the sample of farms selected and utilizing
current monthly records, it is believed that an accurate determination

of energy requirements for Michigan farms can be made.

  

/W

MaJor Professor /

Approved ELK. M

Department Chairman

ApprOVBdJ/I

I

A METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ON MICHIGAN FARMS
USING FARM‘RECORDS

by

Frederick William Hall

A THESIS

Submitted to
'Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Engineering

1975

" (:9 7.2

G4“? 6

To Linda, who worked as hard on this
study as I did, and Tony, who unknowingly
left his imprint here, also. '

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My’most sincere appreciation goes to Professor Robert L. Maddex who
helped me with my graduate program and provided guidence in making this
study. His experience and counsel were of great personal benefit to me.

I also would like to thank Dr. Fred Bakker-Arkema and Dr. John Gill
for their help and advise on this study. Their personal interest in my
work has provided me with much encouragement.

My thanks to Bill Dexter who helped with the details of the Telfarm
record keeping system and to all of the farmers who gave of their time
and participated in the study. I hope that this study will eventually be
of great help to them.

And finally, my appreciation to everyone in the Agricultural Engineering

Department who have been an inspiration to me and a pleasure to work with.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . .
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . .

Methodology. . . . . . . . . . .
The Basic Unit. . . . . . .
Parameters for the Model. .
Michigan Farm Types . . . .
Nfichigan Farm Sizes . .
Technological Factors . .
Data Collection . . . . . .
Statistical Considerations.

Implementation of Methodology.

Results. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farm Descriptions . . . . .
Discussion. . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . .

Summary and‘Recommendations. . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . .

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . .
Conversion Factors. . . . .

Appendix B . . . . . . . . .
Farm‘Data . . . . . . . . .

Appendix C I O O 0 O O O O I O 0
Statistical Model for Pilot

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . .
General References. . .

Study . .

iv

Page

:—

\ONNOQU'IUTW

.ll

.62
.63

Table

l

10
ll

12

B.3
B.h
B.5

B.6

Farm No. l . . . .
‘Farm No. 2 . .
Farm No. 3 . . . .
'Farm No. A . . . .
‘Farm No. 5 . . . .
Farm No. 6 . . . .
Farm No. 7 . . . .
Farm No. 8 . . . .
Farm No. 9 . . . .
'Farm No. 10. . .
Farm No. 11. . . .

Farm No. 12. . . .

LIST OF

TABLES

Kilocalories of the Major Inputs by Farm

Fuel Inputs to Agricultural Production

Inputs for Drying.
‘Farm.No. l . . . .
Farm No. 2 . . . .
Farm No. 3 . . . .
Farm No. A . . . .
Farm No. 5 . . . .

Farm No. 6 . . .

Page

.17
.18
.19
.20
.21

.22

.31
.38
.h0
.h1
.h3

.145

Table
13.7
13.8
B.9

13.10

13.11

13.12
0.1

C.2

‘Farm No.
Farm No.
Farm No.
Farm.No.
Farm.No.
Farm No.
Table of

Analysis

7 . .
8..
9..
10..
11..

12. O

Output-Input‘Values

of‘Variance .

vi

Page
.h9
.51
.52
.53
.55
.56
.58

.59

Amt. Prod.

Cal.

E.I.

Edible Prod.

ft3

gal

hrs
kcal
ks

kw hrs
lbs
Ptshp
Pur

’MCF

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

amount

amount produced
beginning inventory
British Thermal Unit
bushel

Large calorie
hundred weight
ending inventory
edible product
cubic foot
gallons

gram

hours
kilocalorie
kilogram
kilowatt hours
pounds
partnership
purchased

lOOO cubic feet
ton

weight

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between agricultural production and energy consumption
has received much attention in the past few years. Even before fuel
supplies became scarce, numerous studies were done to determine the power
requirements for various farming operations. Those studies established
an estimate of the power required and were based on approximations of
actual farming conditions. The farmer used this information to help plan
the size of equipment needed.

With the increasing awareness of a shortage in fuel supplies, various
states have examined their agricultural industries to determine the amounts
of energy required. The California Department of FoOd and Agriculture
and the’University of California at Davis have reported an estimate of
the energy required to produce and distribute a ton of product.1 The
estimates were then multiplied by the tons of products produced in 1972
to determine the annual energy requirement.

The National Science'Foundation sponsored a project to determine the
quantity of energy necessary to grow, process, transport, wholesale, retail,

refrigerate and cook food in the United States for the year 1963.2

 

1Cervinka,‘V., W. J. Chancellor, R. J. Coffelt, R. G. Curley,
J. B. Dobie. Energy Requirements for Agriculture in California. (Davis,
California, California Department of Food and Agriculture, University of
California, January l97hI.

2
Hirst, Eric. Energy Use for Food in the U.S, (Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October 1973).

Energy input-output tables were used to assign energy values to the
dollar flows reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis for food
expenditures.

These studies have certainly contributed to an understanding of the
energy situation. However, most figures recorded are estimates, or are
based on theoretical conditions. ‘Very little data exists on how much
energy farms actually consume. Several recent computer simulations of
farming operations have indicated the need for an accurate data base of
energy consumption.3 The report of the National Science Foundation
program states, ”the coefficients for the agricultural and trade sectors...
are not well documented."

At the present time, Michigan’s agricultural industry has very little
data on energy consumption. The energy requirements for agricultural
production on a state—wide basis would help in planning fuel allocations.
Even more important, the energy consumption for specific farming operations
would help the farmer plan better use of his energy resources, Likewise,
knowledge of the total requirements for handling a specific material or
producing a product should lead to more efficient use of energy. Energy
consumption in relation to farm size is also important as present indications
are that farm size will increase.5

3Hughes, Harold. Ener Consum tion in Beef Cattle Feedlo s_as
Affected_byé§ize and;Technolo , (Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 19725,

 

 

Misener, Gerry, Interviewed by Frederick Hall (Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, July l97h). .

hHirst, op. cit., p. 28.

5Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooper-
ative Extension Service, Highlights and Summary of Project '80 & 5. Research
Report 180, (East Lansing, Michigan, February 19737}

This author is concerned that Michigan energy data for agricultural
production are limited. The necessity of using energy efficiently is
apparent now. Plans and policies are now being established that will
affect Michigan's agriculture in the years to come. It is hoped that

this study will contribute to the implementation of good planning.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study includes the following major goals.

1.

The design and development of a methodology to collect energy use
data from the major types of‘Michigan agricultural farms. Energy
use data are to include all forms of non-renewable energy employed,
the technology and management practices involved in utilizing the
energy and the amounts of products produced.

The implementation of a pilot study to test the feasibility of the
methodology.

A report of the results of the pilot study.

The establishment of an estimate of the variability among farms and
types of farming.

The comparison of the results of the pilot study with other values
established for energy consumption.

Recommendations for utilizing this methodology in further studies.

METHODOLOGY

The Basic‘Unit

The basic unit of the agricultural production system is the individual
farm. The first combination of resources is selected at this level.
Resources include land, water, equipment, animals, chemicals and non-
renewable energies such as fuels and electricity. The production process
is controlled through various management practices and technologies which
consume energy. The products represent the output of the combination of
the resources, labor, and management.
Parameters for the Model

A factor which influences the amount of energy consumed is the type of
farm studied. A livestock farm is utilizing its resources in a different
manner than a cash grain operation.

Within the type of farm, the size of the operation is expected to
have an effect. Hughes has predicted an optimum size of beef operations
with respect to electrical energy efficiency.6 The effect on other types
of operations is not documented.

The technology and management practices used are also expected to
have an effect. Hughes predicted a solid waste handling system is more
efficient than liquid wastes with respect to fossil fuels. Likewise, an

all silage ration will require less electrical and fossil energy than a

 

6Hughes, op. cit., p. 117.

'mixed corn and silage ration.7

The above information specifies a basic energy model of agricultural
production with emphasis on type and size of farm as well as the technology
involved. The next step is to consider Michigan's agricultural production.
Michigan‘FarmgTypes

'Michigan's agricultural production can be divided into four major
types of farms. The first will include Dairy enterprizes which received
28.h% of Michigan's 1971 cash receipts to agriculture. Livestock is the .
second type, where cattle and calves received 13.5% of the 1971 cash
receipts, and’Fruits and’Vegetables received 10% of the cash receipts for
the same year. Cash Crops representing the fourth type, include corn,
wheat, beans and sugar beets. They received 2h% of Michigan's cash receipts
for 1971.

Michigan’Farm Sizes

As was/mentioned before, the size of operation within each type of
farm is expected to have an effect on energy consumption. Specialists of
agricultural production in Michigan were consulted for advise on the
representative sizes of farms. The farms are classified into large,
”medium and small sizes in the manners specified below.

Dairy enterprizes in Michigan divide into sizes based on the number
ofImilking cows per man. The small Operation, or one-man, is thirty to
forty head. The medium size is a two-man operation, or 100 head plus or
'minus twenty. The large operation would be 200 head or more.

Livestock enterprizes will vary depending on the type of animals.

'For beef, the small operation is up to 150 head on feed. This size of

 

7Ibid., pp. 117-118.

operation will probably also be receiving income from crop sales. The
medium size, onedman operation, will range from 200 to 500 head, and the
large operation will have 800 to 1,000 head on feed. For swine, the small
farm will have twenty to thirty sows, the medium size will have sixty to
seventy sows and the large enterprize will have more than 100 sows.

The size of Operation in Cash Crops is decided solely on the amount
of actual land under production. The small size is less than hOO acres.
Medium range is ADD to 800 acres, and over 800 acres is considered large.

Fruits and‘Vegetables are evaluated on a similar basis. Less than
100 acres is a small operation. Two hundred acres is the medium.size, and
the large operation is h00 acres.
Technological Factors

The technology incorporated in the farming operations must be considered
also. The size of operation may dictate the technology used in some cases,
however specific comparisons of machinery management should be made between
operations of the same size and type. As an example of this comparison,
one might contrast the energy requirements between utilizing a stanchion
barn-verses a milking parlor in a Dairy operation. Another example would
examine the energy consumption between beef enterprizes using tower silos
as compared to those using horizontal silos. A contrast could also be
'made between the use of heavy silage verses a heavy grain feeding program.
Datagggllection

To implement the model the following information must be collected.
1. The gallons of gasoline and/or diesel fuel used in each operation.
2. The gallons of propane or cubic feet of natural gas used in drying

or heating.

3. The kilowatt hours of electricity used for operations.

h. The hours of labor for all individuals involved in the operation.
5. The pounds of chemicals used in crop production.

6. The pounds of fertilizers used in crop production.

7. The pounds of other products brought to the farm unit and consumed

such as feed suppliments.

8. The pounds of products produced.

9. The pounds of products stored and used on the farm.
10. The gallons of water used.

There are various other operations that will consume energy on the
farm, but will not readily appear in products flowing into or out of the
total operation. In separating the energy uses in the operations, the
following data‘must be collected.

1. The pounds of'manure used and the amount of land on which it is spread.

2. The horsepower sizes of both electrical and fossil fuel equipment used
in the operations.

3. The pounds of products processed on the farm.

To demonstrate how the data collected can give rise to energy
equivalents, an example is given as follows:

Suppose it is decided to determine the energy required to cool

the milk on the farm. The pounds of milk produced per day (x)

is multiplied by the number of BTU's per pound (Y) to be removed

from the milk. This gives the total BTU's to be removed per day

from the milk. The capacity of the cooler (w) is expressed in

BTU's per unit of time. Dividing the total BTU's by the Capacity

gives the time (t) required to cool the milk per day. The

coefficient of performance (u) of the cooler is the ratio of the

useful refrigeration to the work supplied. Dividing the time

required to cool the milk by the coefficient of performance

for the cooler gives the actual time (t') the cooler must

work. This time, multiplied by the horsepower (h) of the

motor operating the cooler, provides a result which can be

converted to the watts of electricity needed. The efficiency

of the motor must also be considered in determining the

actual energy consumed.

In summary: XI = Total BTU's removed/day from milk,

XY/w = t, time required to cool milk/day,

t/u = t', actual time cooler must work, and

t'h-4) watts of electricity required
Statistical_Considerations

It is important to recognize the advantages of statistical methods
when conducting a study for possible projections onto a larger scale. A
"completely randomized design" should be considered first, for this study
because the effects of all variables are uncertain. However, some variables
such as size and type of farm are suspected of being directly related to
energy consumption. This implies that a "cross-classification" of data
for statistical analysis would make the most efficient use of the farms
selected. The cross-classified plan has the advantage of maintaining
the precision of estimated "main" effects of factors, while indicating
possible interactions between factors.

Type and size can be considered to have fixed effects because the
classes of both are deliberatly chosen for study. Type of farm, factor A,
in this study, is divided into four classes. As mentioned before, they
are Dairy, Livestock, Fruits and Vegetables, and Cash Crops. Size of

farm, factor B, comprizes three classes, small, medium, and large. A

10
linear model for this design can be written as follows:

Y = u+Ai+BJ+(_AB)i (i=1,2-II, j=1,2,3, k=l,2,...r)

13k J+E(ij)k

Yijk is the observed energy use on the kth farm belonging to the ith class
of A and the jth class of B. The "mean" or average effect of the farms
sampled is represented by u. A and B represent the average effects of

i J

the ith type farm and the jth size farm, respectively. (AB)ij is the

effect of the interaction of type and size, and E is the random

(1.1)}:
effect of all unspecified variables peculiar to the kth farm of that
type and size. The number of farms at each combination of A and B is
designated by r. The mathematics involved are much easier if all
combinations of A and B have the same number of farms.

If specific technologies or‘management practices are to be compared,
then a "mixed classification" design should be used. This design is
similar to the cross-classified design, but it allows a third variable to

be studied within the type or size, when classes of technologies differ

from type to type or by size of farm.

IMPLEMENTATION OF METHODOLOGY

After the basic model was completed, it was decided to implement a
pilot study to test the feasibility of the data collection procedures.
The Telfarm system, a farm accounting program, was selected as a source
of possible cooperating farmers for the study. Two benefits were realized
from utilizing this source. First, the farmers participating in Telfarm
have experience in keeping accurate records and second, most of the
individuals have been known to be cooperative with the University in
past research studies. A possible disadvantage is that this select group

of farmers may not be typical in their ability to make efficient use of
energy.

Because time and funds were limiting factors to the study, the farms
in Ingham, Eaton and Clinton counties were the onhy ones considered. This
limited the types of farming operations to three; Dairy, Livestock, and
Cash Grain. ‘More than fifty percent of the Telfarm cooperators in the
Tri—County area are classified as Specialized Southern Dairy. This
provided a large number of farms to select from in the Dairy Industry.
Two of the farms chosen, were in the small-size classification, two, in
the mediumrsize, and one in the large classification.

All of the beef and swine Operations in the Telfarm system for the
Tri—County area were considered because of the limited number. Three
farms agreed to participate in the study. Two of the operations were

medium-sized beef feeders and the third was a large hog enterprize.

11

12

In the Cash Grain operations, one farm was in the small-size group,
two, in the medium-size, and one in the large. The limited number of
cash grain farmers with Telfarm again affected the sample size.

The study was based on the 1973 records because the l97h records
were not as yet complete. The Telfarm records were examined for the
required data and included such information as crop acreages, yields,
products sold, animals sold, rations fed to livestock on the farm, animal
weight produced, inventories of stored feed and equipment, and the hours
of labor. Additional information such as gallons of fuel used was not
available in the records at the time this study was conducted. This was
gathered directly from the farmers.

A visit to each farm was arranged and management practices were
recorded. These included items such as the tillage operations used, the
amounts and types of fertilizer and chemicals used, types of harvesting
’methods, and the destinations and mode of transportation of produce.
Twelve farms in all, participated in the study and each visit lasted about

two hours in length.

RESULTS

The collected data were organized and each input to the farming
Operations was converted to its energy equivalent. Each of the products
leaving the farm was also converted to its energy equivalent. The out—
put—input ratio could then be determined. The results are presented in
the tables which follow. There is a brief narrative description Of each
farm after the set Of tables and the remainder of the original data

collected is found in Appendix B.

13

TABLE 1.

INPUT

 

Fuel:
Gasoline

Electricity
'Fertilizers and Chemicals:
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Potassium
Herbicides

Labor

Total for Input

 

OUTPUT

Crops:
Corn-shelled (bu)
Wheat (bu)
Beans (cwt)

Dairy: Amt. Prod.
Animal Sales 196 cwt
Milk Sales 3078 cwt

Total for Output

OUTPUT-INPUT RATIO

*

1h

FARM NO. 1
gallons liters
27hh 10386
16000 kw hrs
tons kg
5.06 h590
3.35 3039
3.38 3066
0.10 90.7
2982 hrs
bu/cwt kg
2827 71810
578 15731
289 13109
Edible Prod.
7795 lbs 3535 kg
139618 kg

Conversion factors are given in Appendix A

u
Energy Equivalents

kcal

8.57x107

1.38x107

8.08x102
9.69x106
6.75x106
2.20x10

may:

1.99x108

2.50x103
5.19x107
h.h6x10

9.hlxlO$

2 . 08x10
h.h7x108

btu 8
3. I-IOxlO

5.h6x107

3.2lx10$

3.85le7
2.68X106
8.7lx10

1.62x106

9
1.05x108

2.08x108
1.77x10

7
3.73x108

3.h3x10

TABLE 2.

INPUT

 

Fuel:
Gasoline

Electricity

Fertilizers and Chemicals:

Nitrogen

Phosphorous

Potassium

Herbicides
Labor

Total for Input

OUTPUT
Crops:
Corn—shelled
Wheat
Dairy:
Animal Sales
Milk Sales

Total for Output

OUTPUT-INPUT RATIO

Amt. Prod.

210 cwt
3878 cwt

15

FARM N0. 2
gallons liters
2860 10825
27628 kw hrs
tons kg
1.85 1669
1.8h 1669
n.5u hll9
0.08 76.2
357A hrs
bu kg
1600 h06h3
507 13798
Edible Prod.
8352 lbs 3788 kg
175906 kg

*
Conversion factors are given in Appendix A

*
Energy;Equivalents

kcal

8.95x107

2.37x107

2.9hx102
5.32x106
9.06x106
1.8hx10

5

b.90x10

1.59x108

1.I41x10

8
h.55x107

' 7
1.01x108

lelislg_

3.11x108

btu 8
3.55110

9.h2xlo7

1.17x10
2.113(107
3.60x106
7.32x10

8
7

1.95x106

5.93x103
1.82x10

7
h.00x108

h.32x10

TABLE 3.

INPUT

Fuel:
Diesel
Gasoline
Propane

Electricity:

Lights, Feeding

Hot Water

Fertilizers and Chemicals:

Nitrogen

Phosphorous

Potassium

Herbicides
Labor

Total for Input

OUTPUT
Crops:
Corn-shelled
Wheat
Dairy:
Animal Sales
Milk Sales

Total for Output

OUTPUT-INPUT RATIO

*

Amt. Prod.

630 cwt
9131 cwt

16

FARM NO. 3

gallons
2h23
5500
2595

liters
9171
20817
9822

60781 kw hrs

12815 kw hrs
tons kg
25.01 22689
6.h8 5879
10.68 9689
0.77 69A
6000 hrs
bu kg
8500 21591h
hoo 10886
Edible Prod.
25055 lbs 11365 kg
hlhl66 kg

Conversion factors are given in Appendix A

*
Energy Equivalents

kcal 7
8.5hx108
1.72x107
6.02x10

7

5.22x107

1.10x10

3.99x10$
1.88x107
2.13x107
l . 68x10

3.2:[x106

8.I40x108

7.51x10$
3.59x10

7
3.02x108

2.69310

1.09x109

1.29

2.98xlO
l.h3x10

btu
3.39x108
6.82x108
2.39x10

2.07x10$
h.37x10

1.58x109
7.hhx10
8.h6x10
6.66x10

-4 -q-q—a

1.30x10

9

1.20x108
1.06x10

9

 

17

TABLE h.
FARM NO. h
INPUT
Fuel: gallons liters
Diesel 1516 5738
Gasoline 2380 9008
Electricity 27h2h kw hrs
Fertilizers and Chemicals: tons kg
Nitrogen 11.33 10279
Phosphorous 6.88 62h2
Potassium 19.21 17h27
Herbicides 0.h0 359
Labor 8510 hrs
Total for Input
OUTPUT
Crops: bu kg
Corn-shelled 3h30 87127
Wheat lhOO 38102
Dairy: Amt. Prod. Edible Prod.
Animal Sales 616 cwt 2hh98 lbs 11112 kg
‘Milk Sales 10873 cwt h93199 kg

Total for Output

OUTPUT-INPUT RATIO

a
Conversion factors are given in Appendix A

s
Energy Equivalents

kcal
5.39x10
7.h3x10

—a-a

2.36x107

1.8lx10$

1.99XI07
3 o 83X10 6
8.69X10

6

lease.

h.00x108

- 8
3.03x108

1.26110

2.96xlo7

3.21x10

7.80x108

1.95

7.18x10
7.90x108
1.52x10
3.h5x10

1.27x108

1.17x108
1.1hx10

btu 8
2.12x10
2.95x10

9.35x107

8
7

7

h.63x106

9
5.03x10

9

l8

 

TABLE 5.
FARM NO. 5
It
INPUT Energy Equivalents
Fuel: gallons liters kcal btu 8
Diesel h830 18282 1.7Ox108 6.76x108
Gasoline 371k lh057 1.16x107 h.60x108
Propane 2180 8251 5.0hx10 2.00x10
Electricity 63517 kw hrs 5.I47x107 2.17xlO8
Fertilizers and Chemicals: tons kg 8 9
Nitrogen 23.31 211k? 3.72x107 1.h8x10
Phosphorous 12.66 llh85 3.66x107 l.h5x108
Potassium h3.96 39881 8.77x107 3.h8x107
Herbicides 0.h6 hl6 1.01x10 h.00x10
Labor 13399 hrs 1.8IleO6 7.29x106
Total for Input 8.99x108
OUTPUT
Crops: bu kg 8 9
Corn-shelled A600 ll68h7 h.07x10 1.70x10
Dairy: Amt. Prod. Edible Prod. 7 8
Animal Sales 1252 cwt A9792 lbs 22586 kg 6.0lx108 2.38x109
Milk Sales 18227 cwt 826777 kg 5.31x10 1.02x10
Total for Output 1.00x109
OUTPUT-INPUT RATIO 1.12

*
Conversion factors are given in Appendix A

19

Animal Sales

Total for Output

OUTPUT—INPUT RATIO

*

100k cwt A9206 lbs

TABLE 6.
FARM NO. 6
INPUT
Fuel: gallons liters
Diesel l8h9 6998
Gasoline 3551 lthl
Electricity:
Feeding 2h95 kw hrs
Lights and Water 13000 kw hrs
Fertilizers and Chemicals: tons kg
Nitrogen 8.32 7588
Phosphorous 5.18 A699
Potassium 16.07 1&579
Herbicides 0.6h S82
Labor 6323
Total for Input
OUTPUT
Crops: bu kg
Corn—shelled 5386 136813
Wheat 1659 h5015
Cattle: Amt. Prod. Edible Prod.

22320 kg

Conversion factors are given in Appendix A

*
Energy Equivalents

kcal 7
1.llxlO

2.1hx106
l.l2x10

1.33x10
1.50x10
3.2lx10
l.hlx10

8.67x10

CD 0\ 44:40)

3.92x10

h.76x103

l.h9x10

7

7.83x10

7.03x108

1.79

btu 8
2.59x108
h.h0x10

8.51x106
h.h3x10

5.27xlO$
5.95x108
1.27x107
5.58x10
7

3.hhx10

1.99xlog

5.95x10

3.11x108

Fuel:
Diesel
Gasoline

Electricity

Fertilizers and Chemicals:
Nitrogen
Phosphorous

Potassium
Herbicides

Labor

Total for Input

OUTPUT
Crops:
Corn—shelled
Wheat
Soybeans

Cattle:

Animal Sales 2250 cwt

Total for Output

OUTPUT—INPUT RATIO

Amt. Prod.

20

FARM N0. 7
gallons liters
3519 13318
5913 22381
9600 kw hrs
tons kg
h.57 hlh6
15.51 1h071
27.62 25057
0.39 35h
8261
bu kg
10981 278935
3600 97978
1927 5&193

Edible Prod.
110273 lbs 50020 kg

Conversion factors are given in Appendix A

a
Energy»Equivalents

 

kcal 8
1.85x10

8.25x106

7.30x10;

h.h9xlo7
5.51x106
8. 56x10

6

1.13119.

8
9.71x108

2.18x10

laser:

1.69x109

3.38

14.93x108
7.33x10

3.27x107

8
2.90x108

1.78x108

2.19x107

3.h0x10
6

h.50x10

h.07x103

1.29x108
8.65x10

6.97x108

TnABLE 8 0

INPUT

 

Fuel:
Diesel
Gasoline

Gasoline (custom hauling)
Gasoline (hauling hogs)

Propane (drying)
Propane (heating)

Electricity

Fertilizers and Chemicals:
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Potassium
Herbicides

Labor

Total for Input

OUTPUT
Crops:
Corn-shelled
Wheat
Swine: Amt. Prod.
Animal Sales 6A07 cwt

Total for Output

OUTPUT—INPUT RATIO

*

21

FARM NO. 8
gallons liters
250 9A6
3163 11972
317 1201
2850 10787
11755 AAA93
3000 11355
136800 kw hrs
tons kg
9.67 8773
A.A2 A010
A.A2 A010
0.8A 758
5827 hrs
bu kg
5609 1A2A78
557 15159
Edible Prod.
A022A2 lbs 182A57 kg

Conversion factors are given in Appendix A

Energy Equivalents

 

kcal 6
8.82x107
9.88x106
9.91x107
8.90x108
2.72x107
6.96x10

8

1.17x10

1.59x103
1.28X106
8.82x107

1.83x10

7.29x105
8.60x108

8

A.96x107

5.00x10

9.36x108

l.A6x109

1.70

btu 7
3.50x108
3.92x107
3.93x108
3.53x109
1.08x108
2.76x10

A.66x108

6.11x10
5.08x10
3.50x10
7.27x10

0\ —J—q—4cp

3.17x10

9
2.08x108

2.00x10

3.7lx109

INPUT

Fuel:

Diesel
Gasoline
Propane

Electricity

Fertilizers and Chemicals:

Nitrogen

Phosphorous
Potassium
Herbicides

Labor

Total for Input

OUTPUT

Crops:

Total for Output

OUTPUT—INPUT RATIO

*

Corn-shelled

Wheat

22

FARM NO. 9

gallons liters
1772 6707
2712 10265
2790 10560

1A000 kw hrs
tons kg
15.22 13808
5.60 5080
15.60 1A152
2796 hrs
bu kg
153A5 389788
836 22753

Conversion factors are given in Appendix A

n
Energy_quivalents

 

kcal 7
6.25x107
8.I47xlO7
6.A8x10

1.2Ox107

2.A3x10
1.62x10
3. 11x10
1.6Ax10

—q—q-acn

M

5.3lx108

9

1.36x107

7.51x10

1.Ahx109

2.70

btu 8
2.A8x108
3.36x108
2.57xlO

A.76xlO7

.6hx10$

o ’43X108
.2I-Ix107
.51x10

.52x106

O\I—‘O\\O

I-J

I

.69x10
.00x10

00m
CD\O

TABLE 10.

INPUT

Fuel:
Diesel
Gasoline
Propane

Electricity

Fertilizers
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Potassium
Herbicides

Labor

Total for Input

OUTPUT

Crops:
Corn—shelled
Oats
Hay
Navy Beans
Other Beans
Soybeans

Cattle: Amt. Prod.
Animal Sales 85 cwt

Total for Output

OUTPUT—INPUT RATIO

*

23

FARM NO . 10

gallons liters
3018 11A23
1996 7555
2925 11071

llA00 kw hrs

tons kg
9.98 905A
8.7A 7929
8.7A 7929
0.73 665
3A28 hrs
Amt. kg
755A bu 19188A
1190 bu 17273
29 T 26309
576 cwt 2612A
798 cwt 36197
2186 bu 61A77

Edible Prod.
3380 lbs 1533 kg

Conversion factors are given in Appendix A

9
Energy Equivalents

 

kcal 8
1.07x107
6.22x107
6.78x10
6
9.79x10

8
7
7
7

1. 59x10
2.53x10
1.7Ax10
1.6lx10

5

1112519.

A . 65x108

6.68x108

5.87x10;
6.05x107
8.88x108
1.23x108
2.A8x10

6

A.O8x10

1.25x109

2.69

btu 8
A.23x108
2.A6x108
2.69x10

3.89x107

6.32x10
9.35x10
6.92x107
6.38x10

8
7
7

1.87x106

9
2.80x108

2 o 333C108
2.A0x10

3.52x108
I4.88x108
9 . 83x10

1.62x107

11.

TABLE

INPUT

 

Fuel:

Diesel

Diesel (custom.work)

Gasoline

Gasoline (custom work)

Electricity

Fertilizers and Chemicals:

Nitrogen

Phosphorous
Potassium
Herbicides

Labor

Total for Input

OUTPUT

CrOps:
Corn—shelled (bu)

Total for Output

OUTPUT-INPUT RATIO

fl

Conversion factors are given

Wheat

Navy Beans

(bu)
(cwt)

2A

‘FARM NO. 11
gallons liters
6106 23111
205 775
1700 6A35
182 687
tons kg
17.75 16103
11.75 10660
15.83 1A361
0.51 A59
A9A6 hrs
bu/cwt kg
26800 680763
6755 1838AA
898 A0733

in Appendix A

*
Energy'Equivalents

kcal 8
2.15x106
7.223(107
5.31x106
5.67x10

8
2.83xlO7

3.170x107
3.16x107
1.11110

6.78x105

6.hlx108

9
8
8

2.39x10
6.07x10

1.38x10

3.12x109

A.87

btu 8
8.55x107
2.87x108
2.11x107
2.25x10

1.05x103

1.35x108
1.25x107
A.A1x10

2.69x106

9.A0x10
2.A1x10
5. 50x10

\O\O\O

TABLE 12.
’FARM NO. 12
n
INPUT Energy Equivalents
Fuel: gallons liters kcal 8 btu 9
Diesel 15326 58009 5.Alx108 2.15x10
Gasoline 682A 25829 2.13x107 8.A6x107
PrOpane A75 1998 1.10x109 A.37x109
Nat. Gas 5700 MCF 1.53x10 6.08x10
Electricity 115000 kw hrs 9.88x107 3.92x108
Fertilizers and Chemicals: tons kg 9 9
Nitrogen 106.56 96671 1.70xlO 6.95x109
Phosphorous 105.A0 95619 3.05x108 1.2lx109
Potassium 168.23 152618 3.36x108 1.33x108
Herbicides 10.A5 9A77 2.29x10 9.10x10
Labor 21580 hrs 2.26x106 1.17x107
Total for Input A.97x109
OUTPUT
Crops: Amt. kg 10 10
Corn-shelled 179697 bu A56A59l 1.59x108 6.30x109
—silage 1000 T 907200 6.96x108 2.76x109
Oats 72A6 bu 105177 3.58x107 1.A2x108
Hay A5 T AO82A 9.39x108 3.73x109
Wheat 8772 bu 238739 7.88x108 3.13x109
Nayy Beans 1891 cwt 85776 2.92x108 1.16x109
Soybeans 7087 bu 199309 8.03x10 3.19xlO
Total for Output 1.89x1010
OUTPUT-INPUT RATIO 3.81

i

25

Conversion factors are given in Appendix A

 

26

Farm‘Descriptigns

‘Farm.No. 1: This farm was a one—man dairy operation with a milking
herd of 27 cows.” He used a switch barn for-milking. Silage was stored
in a tower silo and comprized about half Of the roughage fed. There were
1A0 acres Of cropland. Solid wastes were handled by scraper and spread on
16 acres of wheat. There were nine acres of pasture. Crops were hauled
by truck six'miles to the elevator and animals were hauled nine miles to
Imarket.

Farm No. 2: This farm was a 1.2 man dairy Operation with a.mllking
herd of 29 cows. The barn was used as a switch barn, and had an electric
gutter cleaner. Cropland totaled 130 acres with eight acres Of pasture.
Crops were hauled by wagon to an elevator 1.5 miles away. Animals were
picked up at the farm.

Farm NO. 3: This farm was a two—man dairy Operation with a milking
herd of 73 cows. The barn was also a switch barn with an electric gutter
cleaner. Four hundred tons of silage were stored in tower silos and 900
tons in a bunker silo. Nine thousand bushels of high moisture corn were
also blown into storage. In 1973. 10,500 bushels of corn were dried. A
seperate calf barn was heated and had automatic feeding, watering and
nursettes. Cropland totaled 390 acres.

Farm No. A: This farm was a 2.8A man dairy operation with a 9A cow
milking herd. The barn was used as a switch barn with a mechanical feed
bunk and forage wagon outside. One thousand tons of silage were stored
in a bunker silo and 600 tons in a tower silo. Two hundred and fifty tons

of haylage and 150 tons of dry hay were stored. Cropland totaled 3A3

a
Telfarm records 3000 hours of labor as one man—year.

27

acres with 7A acres of pasture.

Farm.NO. 5: This was a A.5 man dairy Operation with a 133 comeilking
herd. It had a double four herringbone parlor and used wagon feeding.
Nine hundred tons of silage were stored in tower silos and 1500 tons were
stored in bunker silos. Haylage totaled 335 tons. Seven thousand bushels
of corn were dried in 1973. Solid wastes were handled by a scraper.
Cropland totaled 5A9 acres.

Farm.NO. 6: This was a 2.1 man beef operation using mechanical
feeders. The average number head on feed.was 260. The amount of silage
fed was 318 tons, hay, 119 tons, and corn, 136 bushels. Cropland totaled
208 acres with 20 acres Of pasture. Cattle were hauled 27 miles to market.

Farm.NO. 7: This farm was a 2.75 man beef Operation using wagon
feeding. The average number head on feed was 599. The silage fed was
1600 tons, hay, 105 tons, and corn, 7800 bushels. Cropland totaled A92
acres. Shelled corn was hauled four miles to an elevator and cattle were
hauled twelve miles to the market.

Farm.NO. 8: This was a 1.9A'man swine operation which produced 2500
head. All feeding was automatic. The nursery and farrowing house was
maintained at 75°F. Forty—six thousand bushels of corn were dried in
1973. Total miles for hauling animals to market was 7500. Cropland
totaled 175 acres and it was all custom harvested.

Farm NO. 9: This was a 275 acre cash grain operation. It had a
portable dryer and a 5000 bushel storage capacity. Corn yield was 75
bushels per acre. Ten thousand bushels Of corn were dried in 1973.

Farm NO. 10: This was a 377 acre cash grain operation with 15 head

of dairy stock also being fed. Crop yields were 92 bushels per acre for

corn, 70 bushels per acre for oats, 2 tons per acre for hay, 11 hundred

28

weight per acre for navy beans, 12 bushels per acre for other beans and
23 bushels per acre for soy beans. In 1973, 7500 bushels of corn were
dried.

Farm NO. 11: This was a 508 acre cash grain operation. None of the
products were processed or stored on the farm. Crop yields were 105
bushels per acre for corn, A5 bushels per acre for wheat, and 7.2 hundred
weight per acre for navy beans. Custom work included harvesting 150 acres
of corn, 80 acres Of beans and 30 acres of wheat in 1973.

Farm NO. 12: This was a 2539 acre cash grain Operation. Some of the
corn handled was seed corn. Crop yields were 111 bushels per acre for
corn, 65 bushels per acre for oats, 3 tons per acre for hay, 52 bushels
per acre for wheat, 12 hundred weight per acre for navy beans and 29
bushels per acre for soy beans. One hundred and seventy—nine bushels
of corn were dried and 100,000 bushels of custom drying was done in 1973.
Discussion of the Results

Since this study is concerned with energy consumption in agricultural
production, an analysis of the inputs is essential. Several parameters
should be considered to determine their influence in energy requirements.
The largest inputs for all farms are presented in the table below.
Together, these inputs make-up 80.3% of the total inputs for all twelve

farms.

TABLE 13. Kilocalories of the Major Inputs by Farm

Farm NO. gasoline diesel propane nitrogen nat. gas
1 8.57x107 — - 8.08x107 —
2 8.95x107 - - 2.9Ax107 —

3 1.72x108 8.5Ax107 6.02x107 3.99x108 _

Farm NO.

10

11

12

Totals

The total for all inputs was 10.9x109 kcal.

gasoline

7.A3x107

1.16x108
1.11x108

1.85x10

03C!)

1.98x10
8.A7x10
6.22xlO

5.88x10

2.13x10

\0 a: —J —a —a

1.A5x10

diesel
5.3Ax107
1.7Ox108

6.52x107

CD

1.2AxlO

O\

8.82x10
6.25x10

1.07x10

coco-4

2.22x10

5. AlxlO
9

CD

l.AAxlO

29

propane

5.0Ax107

2.72x108

6.A8x107

6.78x107

1119;19:

5.26x108

nitrogen

1.81x108

3.72x108

1.33x108
7.30x10
1.5Ax10
2.A3xlO

1.59x10

CDCJCDOJ-Q

2.83x10

ileum:
3.8lx109

It is significant to note

nat. gas

11:31:19?
1.53x109

that the total for nitrogen over all farms is 35% of all the inputs
considered. Also, the input for drying with natural gas on farm twelve
was 1A% of the total.

To further analyze the inputs, some additional parameters were
examined. These include the gallons of fuel used per acre, the machinery

investment to crops per gallon of fuel, the machinery expense per gallon

of fuel, and the bushels dried per gallon of fuel.

 

 

TABLE 1A. Fuel Inputs to Agricultural Production
Farm NO. fuel M. I. to crop, 'mach. expense
gal/acre gal of fuel gal of fuel
1 19.60 $3.16 ‘ $3.20
2 22.00 2.09 2.56

3 20.32 - _

30

 

 

Farm No. fuel 17. I. to crop laugh. expgnse

gal/acre gal of fuel gal of fuel
A 11.36 5.A6 A.90
5 15.56 A.76 2.96
6 25.96 A.89 3.29
7 19.17 A.59 2.81
8 37.60 A.65 A.0A
9 16.31 3.92 1.95
10 13.30 3.91 2.33
11 16.13 A.A0 2.27
12 .8121 1.62 1.22

Average 18.82 $A.3l $3.11

The gallons of fuel used per acre were determined by dividing the
gallons reported in the study by the total tillable acres for each farm.
The second column is the machinery investment attributed to crops divided
by the gallons Of fuel used. The third column is the machinery expense
(operating costs plus interest on investment) divided by the gallons of
fuel.

The gallons Of fuel used per tillable acre on these farms included
all fuel for farm.use. Thus, in the case of farm number 8, the gasoline
used for hauling pigs to market was included. If that fuel is left out,
the figure drops to 21.31 gallons per acre.

The machinery investment to crops per gallon Of fuel indicates that
all farms have similar cropping equipment investments regardless Of size.
In particular, the livestock farms 6, 7, and 8 are very similar. The

cash grain operation of 9, 10, 11, and 12 also show little deviation in

31

investment patterns. The values for farm number three are missing because
there was no financial anaxysis available for that farm.

The machinery expense per gallon of fuel shows the smallest deviation
across all farms. These are only a few of the parameters that might be
examined to determine fuel input relationships.

The propane inputs for drying corn were compared across all farms.
The bushels dried per gallon of fuel is presented in Table 15. The farm
using natural gas for drying is also shown with the units being cubic

feet of gas per bushel.

TABLE 15. Inputs for Drying

Farm NO. bu/gal kcal/bu
3 A.05 57A0
5 3.21 7200
8 3.91 5910
9 3.58 6A80
10 2.56 90A0
12 20.A3 cu ft/bu 5A80

Farm number 10 was also using propane to heat a shop and it was
impossible to seperate the usage. The average kilocalories per bushel
for the remaining five farms is 6162.

A statistical anaLysis of variance was done on the output—input
ratios and the computations and discussion are found in Appendix C. Due
to the small sample size, no significant differences were found between
types of farms. At least 15 farms of each type should be examined to

determine if significant differences do exist.

32

Conclusions

It is important to remember that the pilot study imployed only a
small sample Of farms. With this in mind some conclusions can be
presented.

First of all, the methodology is a relatively uncomplicated process
for determining the energy requirements for agricultural production.

The present Telfarm system has the capability of recording all the
energy inputs and printing them out on various records, provided the
farmers supply the information.

Second, the methodology uses actual energy consumption patterns
verses estimated efficiencies. The figures prepared in other studies
appear to be substantiated by the pilot study. For example, the cash
grain Operations had an average output-input ratio of 3.5A. Pimentel et
al. reported an estimated ratio of 2.52 for corn production.8 Also, the
indirect energy inputs such as fertilizers and chemicals, are generally
larger than the direct energy inputs. Hirst estimated that of the total
energy consumed in agricultural production, AA% was consumed directly on

9

the farm. The remaining 56% was consumed in other sectors to produce
indirect energy inputs for the farm.

Third, the calculated gallons of fuel per tillable acre is relatively
large. A range of 8 to 12 gallons per acre is the generally accepted

figure for fuel consumption. Some possible explainations for this

difference could be that the 8 to 12 gallon figure does not include

 

8Pimentel, D., W. R. Lynn, W. K. MacReynolds, M. T. Hewes, S. Rush.
Workshop on Research Methodologies for Studies of Energy,;Food,fiMan and
Environment, Phase 1. (Ithaca, New York, Cornell University, 197A).

9Hirst, op. cit., p. 15.

33

idling time, breakdowns, interruptions by weather or time of day, or
inefficient use of fuel by the Operator.

Fourth, the drying operations are relatively efficient. Patterson
reports efficient dryers should dry about 3.29 to A.63 bushels of corn
at 30% moisture per gallon Of propane.10 The average of the four Operations

in this study was 3.69 bushels per gallon,

 

0

1 Patterson, R. J., R. L. Maddex, Effectiye Energy Utilization in
Graingprying. (East Lansing, Michigan, Agricultural Engineering Information
Series #292, Michigan State University, 197A).

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This study has deve10ped a methodology using farm records to collect
energy use data from the major types of Michigan agricultural farms. A
pilot study was conducted to test the method and the results compare
favorably with other studies. Nitrogen was found to be the largest single
input across all farms and the gallons of fuel consumed per acre were
greater than had been expected. Other parameters were examined to
determine their influence on energy requirements, yet no single factor was
found having a definitive relationship with the total amount of energy
consumed. Due to the small number of farms, no significant differences
in the output—input ratios between types of farms were discovered.

Recommendations

 

1. It is recommended that the gallons of fuel per acre be
examined further with additional farms. This pilot study
indicates a possible inefficient use of fuel or that previous
estimates are inaccurate.
2. It is recommended that additional studies include at least
15 farms per group to aid in any statistical analysis desired.
.3. To develope possible predictive parameters, it is also
recommended that a "multiple-regression" analysis be considered.
h. It would be helpful for future studies if all Telfarm '

cooperators were requested to include in their monthly reports

3h

5.

35

the amounts of fuel purchased, pounds of fertilizers and
chemicals purchased, and the kilowatt hours of electricity
used, as some cooperators already do.

It is recommended that a combination of both records studies
and visits with the individual farmers be retained. This
would provide the most accurate information and variations
in operating procedures which may aid in explaning farm

energy use differences.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

36

APPENDIX A

CONVERSION FACTORS

Energy Equivalents

 

Produce:ll Cal/100 g (Edible Portion)
Milk 65
Corn 3h8
Oats 3h0
Rye 33h
Wheat 330
Beans - 3h0
Soybeans h03
Beef 351
Dairy 266
Pork 513
Fuels:l2 Btu/gal
Diesel 1&0000
Gasoline l2h000
Propane 92000 3
Natural Gas 1067.5 Btu/ft
Fertilizers and Chemicals:13 kcal/kg
Nitrogen 17600
Phosphorous 3190
Potassium 2200
Herbicides 2h200
h
Forage Equivalents:l kcal/ton (Gross Energy)
Hay 2.09xlog
Silage 6.96xlO

 

llWatt, B. K. and M. L. Merrill. Composition of Foods. (USDA
Agricultural Handbook No. 8, 1963).

 

l2Cervinka, Op. cit.

13Pimentel, o . cit.

h .
1 Based on replacement equivalence for corn in rations.

37

Energy Equivalents

 

Laborls 21770 kcal/ho hr wk
. . . l6 . .
lee Weight to Edible Portions; % DreSSlng of % Bone 1n

3 live wt. carcass
Beef 58 15.5
Dairy h8.5 18
Pork 7h.7h 16

Standard Conversions:

 

l kw hr = 3h09.52 Btu's

l kcal = 3.9683 Btu's

1 lb = .h536 kg

1 ton = 907.2 kg

1 gal = 3.785 liters

1 hectare = 2.h71 acres
15

Pimentel, op, cit.

16Introduction to Livestock Production. H. H. Cole, ed., (W. A.
Freeman & Co., 1962).

 

Pecot, Rebecca K., C. M. Jaeger, and B. K. Watt. Proximate Compo-
sition of Beef from Carcass to Cooked Meat. (Home Economics Research
Report No. 31, ABS, USDA, 1965).

 

APPENDIX B

38
APPENDIX B
TABLE B.l.
FARM N0. 1

Crop Production:
Acre Prod Fed B.I. E.I. Pur Sales
Cornpshelled (bu) 42 3800 831 4300 3900 761 2827

-silage tong 16 160 120 85 85
Hay ton 36 126 129 54 50
Pasture ton; 9 18 18
Uheat (bu 16 578 735 578 1500
Beans (cwt) _§l_ 289 192 289 200
lhO

CrOpping Practices:

Corn Wheat Beans Ha
Plow - h-l6" Disc - twice Plow Int. L30 Baler
Disc - twice Plant Disc - twice
Plant- h—38" Gleaner — K Plant
Picker-sheller 2 row Gleaner - K
Chopper

Fertilizer:

Corn Wheat Beans
Amt. type Amt. type Amt. type
l70 lb/A 18-46—0 250 lb/A 8-32-16 250 lb/A l7-l7-l7
i50 lb/A NH

150 1b/A Potash

 

Chemicals:
Corn . Beans
Amt. type Amt. type
2 lb/A Atrizine 2 qt/A Eptam
Tractors: Electric Motors:
Int. 706 - 67 HP 5 HP Silo Unloader
Int. 560 - 62 HP 1 HP Compressor
Int. H % HP Pump

i-HP Cooler

39

Dairy:
. . B.I. B.I. Sales
Milking Head 27 40 HD 30 HD 26 HD
Calves Born 22

TABLE 3.2.

CrOp Production:

Corn¢shelled (bu;

-silage ton
Hay ton;
Pasture ton
Uheat (bu)

Cropping Practices:

Lift Harrow
Plow - 3-16"
Planter - 4-32"

Fertilizer:

Amt. type
10 tons l6-l6-l6
3960 lbs 12-12-12
9000 lbs Potash

Chemicals:

168 1b/A Atrizine

Tractors:

JD 2510 - 54 HP
JD 630 - 44 HP
Case 40 HP

Dairy:

Milking Head 29
Calves Born 33

L0

FARM NO. 2

Acre Prod Fed B.I.

E.I. Sales
3000 1600
50
507

Electric Motors:

46 3184 1490 2800
9 130 97
52 107 89 7O
8 24 24
_12 507
130
(Corn)
3 HP
3 HP
l HP
g-HP
B.I. E.I.
55 HD 60 HD

Gutter Cleaner
Compressor
Pump

Cooler

Sales
18 HD

TABLE B.3.

FARM N0. 3
Cr0p Production:
Acre Prod
Corn-shelled (bu) 270 17000
-silage Eton) 1300
Hay ton) 70 100
Oats (bu) 20 800
wheat (bu) _29 500
390
CrOpping Practices: (Corn)
Plow - 6-18"
Disc
Harrow
Planter - 6-30"
Picker-Sheller 3 row
Chopper - 3 row
PTO Blower - 400 T
Fertilizer:
Corn Hheat Oats
Amt. type Amt. type Amt. type
165 lb/A 250 lb/A NH 250 lb/A NH

NH
200 lb/A 6-24224

Chemicals: (Corn)
Amt. type
1% lb A Atrizine
2 pt A Bladex

2 pt/A Lasso

Tractors:

Gas - 70 HP

60 HP
Diesel - 140 HP
84 HP

3

Fed Sales
8500
800
50
400
Hex
Amt. type

200 lb/A Potash

Electric Motors:

25 HP
3 HP
5 HP

7%-HP
2 HP
3 HP
3 HP
3 HP
3 HP

ls-HP

Dryer
Auger
Silo Unloader
Silo Unloader

Milker

Gutter Cleaner
Cooler
Conveyor
Conveyor

Dairy:

Milking Head 73

Calves Born

72

Electric Motors (Cont.)

3 HP Auger
3 HP Auger
S-a-HP Misc.

E.I. Sales
18 Bred Heifers 45 Calves
15 Open Heifers 27 Cows

TABIE BOA.

Crop Production:

Corn-shelled (bu)

-silage ton)
Hay ton
Pasture ton
Wheat (bu

CrOpping Practices:

Plow - 6-18"
Drag - twice
Disc

Cultipacker

Planter - 4 row 36"

Gleaner 10¥H
NH 2 row ChOpper

Fertilizer:
Corn
Amt. type
175 lb/A NH
200 lb/A 5-4025
200 lb/A Potash
Chemicals: (Corn)
Amt. type

1% lb/A Atrizine

2 qt/A Lasso

Tractors:

Gas - 75 HP

#5 HP
Diesel - 130 HP
75 HP

#3

FARM N0. 4
Acre Prod Fed
60 6030 2616
84 1680 874
97 487.5 h9h
7h 294 306
_2_§ 1400
343
(Corn)
Wheat
Amt. type
400 lb/A 5—20-20

B.I. E.I. P111.
5000 6030 16

1280 lh55
100 60
12.5
2933
is:
Amt. type

300 1b/A 0—0—60

Electric Motors:

15% HP Total

Dairy:
B.I. E.I. Sales
Milking Head 94 185 HD 188 HD 53 HD
Calves Born 75

AS

TABLE 3.2.
FARM N0. 5

CrOp Production:
Acre Prod Fed B.I. E.I. Sales
Corn-shelled (bu) 180 15852 7648 17465 13500 4602
-silage ton) 187 2431 1691 1379 1470
Hay ton) 114 335 350 391 250
Uheat (bug 1000 1014
Rye bu
Summer Fallow _62
5A9

Cr0pping Practices: (Corn)

Plow - 5-16“
Cultimulcher

Planter - 4 row 40“
Cultivate
Picker-sheller - 2 row
ChOpper

Fertilizer:

Corn Ha
Amt. type Amt. type
100 lb/A NH 400 lb/A Potash
150 lb/A 18246-0
275 lb/A Potash

Chemicals: (Corn)

25-lb/A Atrel 80—w

Tractors: Electric Motors:
Gas - 40 HP 2 - 7% HP Silo Unloader
40 HP 5 HP Silo Unloader
17 HP 2 HP Conveyor
Diesel - 115 HP 2-HP Uagon Loader
2 — 95 HP HP Protein Conveyor
40 HP 1 HP 01d Milker

2 - 1 HP Corn Bin
1 HP Soy Bean Bin
3 HP ‘Hell

Dairy:

Milking Head 133
Calves Born 121

EL
m7m

Electric Motors (Cont.)

h)
I

NIPI—‘l-Ji-IPF-‘Nwm

Hfififififififi

N
I

E.I.
352 HD

Cooler
Cooler
Vacuum
Milker
Agitation
Grain Auger
Fan Furnace
Vent Fans

Sales
57 HD

#7

TABLE B.6.

EARM N0. 6

Cr0p Production:
Acre Prod Fed
Cornpshelled (bu 83 6640 136
-silage ton 45 450 318
Hay ton 30 150 119
Pasture ton 20 40 40
Iheat (bu _}Q 1800
208

CrOpping Practices:

Corn
Plow - 5-16", 7-16"
Disc
Drag
Planter — 4 row 36"
ChOpper - 2 row
Corn Head — 2 row
Uagon Transport
Silo-H.M. Storage
Grinder
Auger
Feed Bunk

Fertilizer:

Corn
Amt. type
100 1b/A NH
Potash

300 lb/A
200 lb/A 9-32-6

Wheat
Amt.

type
300 lb/A

6-24-24

Chemicals:

Amt.
2 1b/A
2 lb/A

type
Atrizine
Lasso

Tractors:
Gas - 40 HP

60 HP
60 HP

B.I. E.I.
9000 8500
600 450

30 50

Sales
5386

1000 1654

Hheat
Plow
Cultipack
Drag - 2 or 3
Drill
Gleaner Combine
Straw Ch0p

Hat
Amt.

type
300 1b/A

5-0-60

Electric Motors:

3 HP Silo Unloader
2 - 5 HP Silo Unloader
2 - 5 HP Forage Auger

48

Tractors (Cont.) Electric Motors (Cont.)
Gas - 60 HP - Combine é-HP Supplement
40 HP'- Uindrower 'é-HP Supplement
Diesel - 130 HP 71}- HP Grinder
97 HP '3 HP .Auger
40 HP HP Pump
Beef:

(cwt) Sales B.I. Pur E.I. Prod
Average Head on Feed 260 2628 1975 1238 1589 1004

TABLE BOY.

CrOp Production:

Corn-shelled (bu)
-silage ton)

Hay ton)
Hheat bu)
Soybeans bu)

Acre
201
139

30
75
.41
A92

CrOpping Practices:

921:2
Plow - 7-16"
Cultimulcher
Planter - 6 row 30"
Combine — 4 row Corn HD
ChOpper

Fertilizer:

Corn
Amt. type
300 lb/A 7-23-3
200 lb/A 0-0—60

Chemicals:

Corn
Amt. type
2 1b/A Atrizine

Tractors:
Gas — 60 HP Hydromatic
130 HP Combine
Diesel — 130 HP
130 HP
90 HP

A9

 

FARM NO. 7
Prod Fed B.I. E.I. Sales
20100 7815 34800 20300 10981
2333 1592 3500 2800
105 105
3600 1618
1927 1125 750
Wheat Beans
Plow Plow
Roller Harrow Roller Harrow
Drill Disc
13' Header Plant
Wheat Soybeans
Amt. type Amt. type

300 lb/A 6—24.24

200 lb/A 7-23-3
200 1b/A 0—0—60

Soybeans
Amt. type

2 1b/A Lorax

Electric Motors:

3 - 7fi-HP Silo Unloader
1 HP Forage Auger
e-HP Grain Auger
'fi-HP ,Load Mill

5 HP Wagon Loader

HP Water

' HP Supplement

[Lav

50

Beef:
(cwt) Sales B.I. E.I. Pur Prod
Average Head on Feed 599 4864 3726 2388 1276 2250

TABLE 8.8.

Cr0p Production:

Corn-shelled (bu)

Pasture
Wheat

CrOpping Practices:

Plow
Rotov3tor
Spray

Fertilizer:

Amt.
9.7 tons
10.0 tons
7.0 tons
Chemicals:

Amt.
65 gal
95 gal

150 lbs
400 lbs

Tractors:

Gas - 92 HP 1855 Oliver

Swine:

51

FARM NO.
Acre Prod
155 13640
(ton) 10 2O
(bu) 32 557
175
(Corn)
(Corn)
type
NH3
13-26-26
6-26-26
type
Atrex 4-L
Lasso
Atrex 804W
Aldrin
25 HP 66 Oliver
Diesel - 43.5 HP 88 Oliver
(cwt) B.I.
2222

Produced 2500 HD

8

Fed B.I.

E.I.

Pur

Sales

8903 40769 28619 28619 5609
20

580

E.I.
2831

975 HP Total

Sales

5798

Electric Motors:

Prod
6407

1090

TABLE 309.

Cr0p Production:

Corn-shelled bu)
Wheat bu)

CrOpping Practices:

Corn
Plow - 5—16“
Cultimulcher
Planter - 4 row 38"

Picker—sheller 2 row

Fertilizer:
Corn
Amt. type
100 lb/A 18-40-60
100 lb/A 0-0-60
125 lb/A NH3
Chemicals:
Amt. type
li-lb/A Atrizine
2 qt/A Lasso
2 1b/A
Tractors:
Gas - 35 HP
Diesel - 100 HP

50 HP
35 HP

52

 

FARM NO. 9
Acre Prod B.I. E.I.
250 18075 6750 12000
.22 750
275
Wheat
Plow
Drag
Drill
Wheat
Amt 0 type
200 1b/A 6-24-24

Atrizine (60 acres)

Electric Motors:

7 HP Dryer
5 HP Auger
3 HP Auger

Sales
10095
836

TABLE 8.10.

Crop Production:

Cornyshelled (bu

-silage (ton
Oats (bu
Hay (ton
Navybeans (cwt
Other Beans cwt)
Soybeans (bu)

Cropping Practices:

Plow
Drag
Plant

Fertilizer:

Corn
Amt. type
100 lb/A NH
300 1b/A 6-24224

 

Chemicals:
Corn
Amt. type
2% 1b/A Atrex .
2 1b/A Bladex
Tractors:

Acre

93
18

17
18
6O
72

.22
377

Gas - 80 HP 1750 Oliver

Diesel - 100 HP
50 HP
50 HP
50 HP

*Partnership

53

FARM NO. 10
Prod Fed
7555 209
180 180
1190 5
36 7
576
798
2186
Oats
Amt. type

200 1b/A 6-24p24

W
Amt: 0 type

2 lb/A Lorax

1855 Oliver

65 Massey

D17 Allis-Chalmers
300 Massey Combine

B.I.
9100
110

15

337

E.I. Sales Ptshp*

6600 8651 615
130
19
40

848

3A9

1700 513

Beans
Amt. type

250 lb/A 15.15—15

Beans
Amt. type
2 qt/A Eptam
1 pt/A Treflan

Electric Motors:

3 HP Silo Unloader
1&HP Mgm'
{' HP Bale Elevator

5h

Beef:
(cwt) B.I. E.I. Sales
Average Head on Feed 15 67 96 55

TABLE B.ll.

FARM NO. 11
Crop Production:
Acre Prod B.I. E.I. Sales Ptshp
Corn-shelled (bu 255 26775 20000 25295 16662 2535
Wheat bu 128 6775 4198 758
Nevybeans (cwt 125 898 200 248 86
508
CrOpping Practices:
Corn Iheat Beans
Plow - 5—16" Disc Plow
Planter - 4 row 30" Drill Disc & Drag
Drag - twice
Fertilizer:
Corn Wheat
Amt. type Amt. type
140 lb/ NH 300 lb/A 6-24—24
200 lb/A 5.20210
100 lb/A 0.0.60
Chemicals:
Corn Beans
Amt. type Amt. type
24} lb/A Atrizine 1% pt/A Eptam
1 pt/A Treflan
Tractors:

Gas - 40 HP Combine Int. 403
Diesel - 105 HP

90 HP

90 HP

70 HP

83 HP MFSIO Combine

56

 

 

TABLE B.12
FARM NO. 12
Crop Production:
Acre Prod
Cornpshelled (bu) 1664 179697
—si1age (ton 69 1000
Oats (bu 135 8775
Hay (ton l5 #5
Wheat (bu 185 8772
Navybeans (cwt 159 1891
Soybeans (bu) 12 7087
2539
CrOpping Practices:
Corn Beans
Fall Plow Spray-Disc
Cultivate Cultimulcher
Level Plant
Plant
Spray
Fertilizer:
Corn Beans
Amt. type Amt. type
100 lb/A NH3 200 ib/A 6—24-12
200 1b/A 6—24-12
200 lb/A 0—0—60
100 lb/A 0—60-0
Chemicals:
Corn Beans
Amt. type Acre Amt. type
1 1b/A Atrizin 500 1 pt/A 2-40
2 1b/A Atrizin 800 2 qt/A Eptam
1 gal A Oil 500 1 pt/A
35-1b A Bladex 100
1 lb/A Fearidan 800
12 1b/A Diazon 600
Tractors:
Gas - 67 HP
41 HP

150 HP Ag. Gator

Acre
300
225

Treflan 225

Sales
182386
1000
7246
4
21267
1891
3024

7124

Wheat
Spray-Disc
Drill

Hheat
Amt. type
300 ib/A 6—24_24

Wheat
Amt. type
1; lb/A Lorax
2 qt/A Lasso

Electric Motors:

5 - 7% HP
10 HP
5 - 5 HP

.57

Tractors (Cont.) Electric Motors (Cont.)
Gas - 90 HP Combine 7%-HP
30 HP Clark Loader 20 HP Seed Mill
Diesel - 151 HP 3 HP
135 HP
140 HP
150 HP

125 HP Hydrostatic
120 HP Combine

APPENDIX C

58

APPENDIX C

STATISTICAL MODEL FOR PILOT STUDY

Since the pilot study was limited to a small number of farms, a
one-way analysis of variance was used with the farms grouped by type of
operation. Considering the type of farm to be a fixed'variable, the

-model for this design is:

YiJ = p+Ti+E(i)J i=l’2’3

where Yij is the observed effect of the Jth farm on the ith type of

farming, u is the overall "mean" effect, T is the effect between types

1

of farms and E is the effect of the individual farm. The computations

(1):
are presented below. One represents the dairy type, 2 is the livestock

type, and 3 is the cash grain type.

TABLE Cpl. Table of Output-Input Values

 

H-
II
|-'
H.
II
A)
H
II
LO

I
I
i

2.24 1.79 2.70
1.95 3.38 2.69
1.29 1.70 4.87
1.95 3.81
.1112. __ _..__
yi. = 8.55 6.87 1h.07

r1 = 5 3 h
5; = 1.71 2.29 3.52

Ti 2 _

z yiJ -15.sh 17.52 52.76
71- /r1 eliaaé 15.73 g§552_

 

M
‘4
H.
La
‘4
p.
\
’1
ll
\0
|\)
l-J
4
\0
U.)
M
.1

59

 

1:1. 1:2. 1:1
(ri—l) = h 2 3 VB = 9
y.. = 29.h9 y..2/n = 72.h7 (A) n=12
2 -
2
yi. /r1 = 72.h8 (C)
6.34 = SSE
(B) — (A) = ssy = 13.35 Total
(0) - (A) = SST = 7.01 Trt.
MST = (SST/(t-l)) = 3.51
MSE . (SSE/vE) = .70
The data can now be put in an analysis of variance table,
TABLE 0:2. AnaIysis of Variance
Source d.f. SS MS (E)MS
Trt. (among groups) 2 7.01 3.51 02+121r1112/(t-1)

Exp. Error (within groups) 9 6.3h .70 02

To test the hypothesis that Ti=0’ the appropriate test statistic is:

— h.26

H:
I

- 8.02

H)
l

60

Since the sample Size is so small, it would be unwise to accept the
hypothesis at the 95% confidence level.

When using this method of analysis of variance, the assumption is
made that the variance is homogeneous from group to group. This assumption

can be tested by using the test statistic:

2 2 = =
rmx (Emmi/8min) 1.09/.23 4.74

This value is far less than the value for fmax at a=.05 with three degrees
of freedom in the numerator and denominator, of 27.5. It indicates that
the assumption is acceptable.

A pilot study such as this can be of benefit to other studies that
follow by providing an estimate of the variability of the groups. The
estimate can be used to determine the minimum number of farms in each
group needed, to observe significant differences between groups. For
example, if this study were to be conducted again, the following computa-
tions will give the number of farms required in each type of farming to
detect significant differences between the types.

The average observation of each type of farming can be used to specify
an array of values to be detected. The y} from the computations provides
the following array, {1.71, 2.29, 3.52}. The "mean" of this array, u, is
2.76. Therefore the T ’s are {-1.05, -.hY, .76}. These are differences

i
that are to be detected. The formula,

 

0 =Vg7t 121(Tdi/0)2

will be used to determine the number of farms which is represented by r,

t is the number of types, and can be estimated from the expected mean

61

square for error from the pilot study.
0 = /.70 = .8h

(Tdi/o) = (-1.25, —0.56, 0.90)

 

¢ = Jr/3 (2.68) = 7.39 r

Using v =2, v2= tCr—l) and standard statistical tables, the value for r

i
can be determined by inspection. If it is desired to detect a difference
with 95% confidence Ca= .05) with a power of 95% CB= .05), the number of

farms in each type of farming should be 15.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cervinka, V., W. J. Chancellor, R. J. Coffett, R. G. Curley, J. B. Dobie.
EnergyfiRequirements for Agriculture in California. Davis, California,
CaliforniaTDepartmen't of POOH and Agriculture, University of Califor—
nia, January 197))”

Hirst, Eric. Enerq Use for Food in the U._S_. Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, October 1973.

Hughes, Harold. Energy Consumption in Beef Cattle Feedlots as Affected
by Size and Technology. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1972.

Introduction to Livestock Production. H. H. Cole, ed., W. A. Freeman and
CO., 1962;

Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative
Extension Service. Hi hli'hts and ' O 'P o e t ’80 8:
Research Report 180, East Lansing, Michigan, February 1973.

Misener, Gerry. Interviewed by Frederick Hall. Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, July 1971‘.

Patterson, ‘R. J., R. L. Maddex, Effectiye Energy Utilization in Grain
Drying. East Lansing, Michigan, Agricultural Engineering Information
Series #292, Michigan State University, 1971:.

Pecot, Rebecca K., C. M. Jaeger, and B. K. Watt. Proximate Composition of
Beef from Carcass to Cooked Meat. Home Economics Research Report No.
31, ABS, USDA, 1963.

Pimentel, D., W. ’R. Iynn, W. K. MacReynolds, M. T. Hewes, S. Rush. Work-
shop on Research Methodologies for Studies of Energy; FOOL Man and
Environment, Phase 1. Ithaca, New York, Cornell University, 1971:.

Watt, B. K. and M. L. Merrill. Cognpogition of Foods. USDA Agricultural
Handbook No. 8, 1963.

62

GENERAL REFERENCES

Dexter, W. A., Extension Specialist, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Nfichigan State University. Interviewed by Frederick Hall, East
Lansing, Michigan, July 197A.

Energy Consulting Service, Consumers Power Company. Interviewed by
'Frederick Hall, Lansing, Michigan, January 1975.

Gill, John L. 'Introduction and'Review offiBasic Statistical Principles
and Procedures. East Lansing, Michigan, Unpublished Handbook for a
statistics sequence, 1975.

Huber, John T., Professor, Department of Dairy Science, Michigan State
‘University. Interviewed by‘Frederick Hall, East Lansing, Michigan,

January 1975.

 

Maddex, RObert L. fMaterials Handling SyStems and Farmstead Lgyouts. East
Lansing,.Michigan, Unpublished Handbook, October 19 .

Mechgpical Engineers} HandbOok, L. 8. Marks, ed., McGraw—Hill Book Com-
pany, 1951.

Michi an ricultural Statistics 1 2. Michigan Department of Agriculture,
Lansing,JMichigan, July 1973.

Price, JameS'F., Associate Professor, Department of Food Science and Human

Nutrition, Michigan State'University. Interviewed by Frederick Hall,
East Lansing, Michigan, January 1975,

63

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRARIES

I III II IIIIII

31293103304469