AN ANALYSIS CP SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT FOR
HANDLING MATERIALS ON MICHIGAN
LIVESTOCK FARMS

By
Robert William Kleis

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies
of Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
DCCTGR OP PHILOSOPHY
Department of Agricultural Engineering
1957

Approved

__________ y

l

v ud c /

ABSTRACT

ROBERT WI LLIAM KLEIS

As muc h as 80 percent of the total labor load on live­
stock farms is associated with work in and around the farm
buildings.

Almost all this work around the farmstead is

involved in materials handling.

Considering the fact that

many materials are handled several times,

a rather modest

livestock farm operation could easily involve handling 2,000
tons or ii,000,000 pounds of materials annually.
Agricultural experiment stations,

industry and other

agencies are devoting much attention to the general problem
of materials handling through programs of research and edu­
cation.

However,

these activities are suffering from a lack

of specific and applicable data on the requirements for and
effects of performing various operations by different
methods.

Most existing information is based upon case

studies and examples.

As such,

this information can be ap­

propriately applied only to other situations with similar
i

conditions,

if such exist.

This study was not concerned with theoretical effects
or conditions but with the actual materials handling situ­
ation on livestock farms in general.

The project included a

sufficiently large number of farms to permit valid statisti­
cal analyses of the data;

320 farms were studied.

Thirty different materials handling operations were
analyzed in this study.

The methods of performing each

operation were classified as eliminated, manual,
mechanized, mechanized or automatic.

sem i­

Data obtained from

each of the 320 farms for each of the thirty operations in­
cluded annual tonnage, method of handling and man-hours per
ton.

The analyses of these data provided tabulated inform­

ation on the performance of each operation by various de­
grees of mechanization.

As an example,

the total man-hours

per ton for handling baled hay is 2.05 for completely manual
operations and .38 on farms with the greatest mechanization
and efficiency.

These data do not represent Individual

farms but means of varied numbers of farms.
Additional data were obtained,

analyzed and tabulated,

relating to the first costs, operating costs, repair costs,
age, expected life and-annual usage of twenty different
Items of materials handling equipment.

The greatest total

cost per hour used is associated with the barn cleaner;
$1.63 per hour used.

When work capacities are considered,

a man's time is worth f>.kl per hour In competition with the
barn cleaner.

Similar data were obtained for other m ec h a n ­

ical units.
The data have been processed statistically and summa­
rized to serve as reference data for education and promotion
activities.

They also serve to demonstrate readily those

operations which are most in need of engineering attention.
F a r m e r s 1 comments were noted and also serve to emphasize

the most critical needs.
general,

Hay and grain handling are,

in

the most critical from the standpoint of quantity

and nature of effort required.
on the other hand,

Silage and manure handling,

are more highly mechanized and the com­

ponent operations are more commonly Integrated into complete
sys tom s•
A rather detailed analysis was conducted on the corre­
lation of investments

In materials handling equipment to

over-all relative labor requirements.

The resulting corre-

lati on coefficient of .193 with 318 degrees of freedom is
highly significant.

AN ANALYSIS OP SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT FOR
HANDLING MATERIALS ON MICHIGAN
LIVESTOCK FARMS

By
Robert Willia m Kleis

A THESIS

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies
of Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Agricultural Engineering

1957

ProQuest Number: 10008521

All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

uest
ProQuest 10008521
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes

to express his sincere appreciation

and gratitude to the following individuals:
Professor D« E. Wiant, Agricultural Engineering
Department,

under whose constant and inspiring

supervision this investigation has been conducted.
Dr. W. D. Baten, Agricultural Experiment Station
Statistian, for his help in connection with statis­
tical procedures*
Dr. A. W. Farrall,
Department,

Head, Agricultural Engineering

for his activities in arranging for and

administering this project.
H. J. Gallagher (the late)

and p. R. Schepers of the

Consumers Power Company for providing financial
support and active help in executing this study.
Dr. M. L. Esmay, Agricultural Engineering Department,
and Dr. C. P. Wells, Department of Mathematics,

for

their help in guiding this program and in the prepa­
ration of this thesis.
Dallas Alsup, Kenneth Austin, Floyd Ayres, David Chism,
Ray Conant, Harold Hammond, Clare Hansen, James
Hankinson, Marvin Heft,
Dennis McGuire,

James Kline, Hugh Marshall,

John Naglekirk, Richard Null,

i

Justin Sutton, Herman Walt, Tom Wallace,
Willia m Wilbur,-, Lee Weatherby,
Vos,

John White,

Norman Wood and Fred

all Farm Service Advisors of the Consumers

Power Company,

for their excellent cooperation and/

extensive work in obtaining the data from the^farms
s tudie d.
Mr. F. B. Martin and Mrs. Norma Hay, Supervisor and
Superintendent,
facilities,

respectively,

of the IBM computing

for their patience and cooperation in

connection with the analysis of data.

ii

VITA
Robert William Kleis
Candidate for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Final Examination:

April 18, 1957* 10:00 AM, Ro om 218,
Agricultural Engineering Building.

Dissertation:

An Analysis of Systems and Equipment for
Handling Materials or Michigan Livestock
Farms.

Outline of Studies:
Major subject: Agricultural Engineering
Minor subjects:Mathematics and Statistics
Biographical Items:
Born:

November 30, 1925 > Martin, Michigan.

Undergraduate Studies:
Graduate Studies:

Michigan State College,

Michigan State College,

M.S. 1951; University of Illinois,
Michigan State University,
Experience:
/

19l(.6-l.j.9

191x9-51

1951-56;

1956-57.

Instructor in Agricultural Engineering
Michigan State College, 191i9-5l; Instruc'
tor and Assistant Professor of Agri­
cultural Engineering, University of
Illinois,

1951-56;

Graduate Assistant,

Michigan State University, 1956-57.

Honorary Societies:

Tau Beta PI,

Pi Mu Epsilon,

Phi Lambda Tau.
Professional Affiliations:

American Society of Agricultural
Engineers,

Registered P r of e s­

sional Engineer

(Illinois).

TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
LIST OP FIGURES
LIST OP TABLES
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES

..............

vii

................................ . ....
..............

1

..........................................

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

viii

...........................

5
6

Significance of Materials Handling on the
Farms
...........

7

Relationship of Farmstead Mechanization to
Farm Operation
.............. ,..........

9

............

13

..........................

16

Mechanisation Versus Labor Inputs
Intangible Factors

Principles of Work Simplification

..........

Trends In Mechanization and Production on
Farms In the United States
.............
INVESTIGATIONAL PROCEDURE

.........................

21
2If.

29

Information Desired

30

Statistical Design

35

Data Processing and Analysis

......

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

36
.......

39

Nature of Farms Studied

39

Factors Involved in Analyses of Specific
Operations
................

H7

Hay Handling Operations

52

......

Silage Handling Operations
Bedding Handling Operations

v

...........
......

57
62

Page
Manure Handling Operations
*............. .

12.

Small Grains and Concentrates Handling
Operations
............................... . . . .

75

Ground Feed Handling Operations

78

Summary of Labor Requirements for Materials
Handl ing
.................. ■........................

.

Ear Corn Handling Operations

63

Costs and Other Factors Involved in Owning
and Operating Feed Handling Equipment

86

Mechanization and Production Efficiency

. ...

89

...

93

Substitution of Equipment for Hired Labor
Use of Time Saved by Materials Handling
.......................
Equipment
SUMMARY

.....

LIST OF REFERENCES
APPENDIX

99
101

................

......................

vi

106
110

82

LIST OF FIGURES.
Figure
1.
2.
3.

ip.
5*
6.

7.
8.
9.
10.

Page
Wor k done in and around farm buildings
the United States

in
10

Product contours and resource substitution
with one indivisible factor
................

15

Total volume of farm machinery and equip­
ment, output and employment in the United
States
•.

26

Geographical distribution by counties of
.............
farms included In thisstudy

IpO

Distribution of acreage of 320 farms
studied
..................... ...... ......

iplp

Distribution of man-hours per ton for
placing ear corn in storage by three dif­
..... .......
ferent methods

Ip9

Distribution of man-hours per ton for r e ­
moval of baled hay from themow

50

Distribution of labor requirements and in­
vestments in equipment

92

Distribution of total labor used on 320
farms s tudied
..................

95

Distribution of hired labor used on 320
farms studied
........ .............. .

97

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Number of Farms and Acres Farmed in
Michigan
•••••.......... ............. .

21

Index Numbers - Farm Production per ManHour
.......... ................ ............

28

Types of Livestock Enterprises on 320 Farms
Studied
.......... ......... ........ .......

k2

Acreage of 320 Farms Studied

k-3

.......

Distribution of Ages of Farm Operators and
Relationship to Farm Size and Mechanization
Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
Bale d Hay
..

53

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
Chopped Hay
........... ...........

$k-

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
........ ...... ....................
Loose Hay

55

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
........... .
Silage - Vertical Silos

59

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
Silage - Horizontal Silos
...............

60

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
......... ....................
Baled Bedding

63

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
Chopped Bedding
......................

6I4.

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
Loose Bedding
...........................

65

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
Other Bedding
....... ............. .

66

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
........
Manure for Dairy and Beef Cattle

70

viii

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
Manure on Poultry and General Livestock
Farms
....... * ......................... .* .

71

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
Ear Corn
...............................

73

Methods ana Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
Small Grains and Concentrates
•••••••.•••

77

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
Ground Feed for Dairy and Beef Cattle . ...

79

Methods and Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
Ground Feed on Poultry and General Liv e­
stock Farms
.... ..........................

80

Summary of Man-Hours per Ton for Handling
Feeds on 320 Livestock Farms .... .

83

Summary of Total Labor Used in Handling
Various Materials on Farms Studied
......

8k

Wattage, Age, Expected Life and Extent of
Use of Feed Handling Equipment
.........

87

Costs of Owning and Operating Feed
Handling Equipment
....................

88

Man-Months of Labor per Year on 320 Live­
stock Farms
....................... .

9k

Man-Months of Hired Labor per Year on 320
Livestock Farms
.......... ................

96

Use of Time Saved b y Feed Handling
Equipment
••...«•.......... ...............

99

ix

INTRODUCTION

Farming is frequently referred to as a ’wa y of l i f e 1.
This is not generally contested but its importance is de­
creasing w i t h respect to serving as a primary basis for
choosing to enter or continue farming as a career.

The

uniqueness of farming and farm living is lessening with
advances in such things as transportation and communica­
tions.

Other factors have come to the forefront for con­

sideration by those who are comparing farming to other
vocations for purposes of making a decision.
Modern agriculture Is a highly technical field and
farming is a business.

A successful farm is a paying farm

An unsuccessful farm soon looses its appeal as a ’w a y of
life*.
The farm provides the farmer with a job, work for his
family and perhaps some work for hired labor.
single cost in farming Is the cost of labor.
principle thing the farmer has to sell.

The largest
It is the

The efficiency

associated wit h the use of labor is then, often the deter­
mining factor of the success or failure of a farm business
Many production processes and practices have their
bases in tradition.

In a changing technical

field and

competitive business, however, historical precedent is

2

hardly a sound operating guide.
tional

notions among farm people has been that long hours

of *hard work*
farmer.

One of the general tradi­

is an indication of a thrifty and good

While this is a wholesome and refreshing attitude

to encounter,

it is suggested that, as a criterion of suc­

cessful farm operation,

it might be modified to

work*.

and in turn productivity,

Accomplishment,

'effective
does not

result necessarily from hard work but from effective app­
lication of effort.

There is a trend toward the use of

energy applied through mechanical units for greater effect­
iveness of human effort.

This trend is not particularly

recent in origin but yet has much need for continuation.
Investments in machinery on farms

today are seldom

below $5*000 per farm and frequently reach levels of
$20,000 or more on larger farms.
investment in machinery
in 1955 was $7*937*

The average undepreciated

(U2) on farms in central Michigan

In comparison with these investments

in field machinery the common investments in equipment for
reducing labor about the farmstead are quite insignificant.
This, coupled wi th the fact that on livestock farms as m uch
as 80 percent of the work load is around the farmstead,
indicates a lack of balance in investments for labor re ­
duction.

There are perhaps several logical reasons for

this unbalance.
1.

The high percentage of effort expended in and
around farm buildings on livestock farms is

3

caused to a large extent by the rather advanced
stage of mechanization of field operation.
2.

Electric service on many farms is relatively new
and the availability of application equipment
even newer.

With the exceptions of water systems

and milking machines most of the major items of
labor reducing equipment have been developed to
a state of satisfactory operation since the term­
ination of World War II.
3.

There is a lack of uniformity of procedure in
performing farmstead operations which makes

it

difficult to develop one unit which will fit the
circumstances of every farm.

This situation did

not exist to such an extent in the case of field
machinery.
[j..

Because of the situation mentioned in item three
and because much of the farmstead equipment must
be installed as part of a system within a farm
structure,

the merchandising of such equipment

is more difficult.

Because of this and the fact

that volumes of sales are rather low, merch a n­
dising programs have not been developed to the
satisfaction of the farmer.
5.

Farmers,

in general, have not developed an

appreciation of the amount of time they devote
to materials handling about the farmstead,

and

1+

continue
6,

to underestimate

the value of that time,

There is a serious lack of specific

information

concerning the effects of the use of mechanical
farmstead, equipment on labor efficiency and in
turn on over-all production efficiency.
The study and analysis reported in this

thesis were

designed and conducted to provide some of the material
mentioned in item six.

It is expected that this material

will be useful in planning and executing educational pro­
grams directed toward the probjems indicated in items
three through five, especially number five.

5

OBJECTIVES

The general objective of this study is to evaluate
the effects of the use of mechanical equipment for materials
handling in livestock farm operations in Michigan.

More

specific objectives are:
1.

To

obtain data on labor requirements for p e r ­

forming various materials handling operations
with different degrees of mechanization under
actual operating conditions.
2.

To

evaluate the effect of materials handling

mechanization on over-all production efficiency.
To assemble information on costs of owning and
operating various specific items of materials
handling equipment.
L|_*

To

determine what is actually being done with

whatever,

if any,

time is saved by the use of

mechanical equipment.
5>.

To

determine the critical needs for Improvement

of existing or development of new equipment for
livestock farms.

6

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Much work has been done and a great deal has been
written on problems and topics related directly and in­
directly to materials handling on farms.
classified as materials handling,
chore mechanization,

Whether it be

farm work simplification,

farmstead mechanization,

feed h and­

ling, chore labor efficiency, or farmstead automation,

it

Is directed toward the common objectives of reduction of
labor and drudgery and/or improving production efficiency.
The references cited here represent only a small portion
of what is available and only a part of what was reviewed
In connection with this study.
Some general observations resulting from a review of
past and current work and published material in this area
are:
1.

A large part of the published material is a
popular style;

either extension publications

or popular magazine articles.
2.

Much of the material

is supported only by the

judgment of the author rather than research find­
ings.

This is not to say that it is not serving

a worthy purpose, but It must be evaluated accord­
ing to what it represents.

7

3*

Considerable duplication of effort exists

in this

general area of research*
Nearly all of the work has been and is applied
research*
5.

Most of the activities and reports deal w i th the
development or performance of a unit for a spe c­
ific operation with little consideration being
given to it as part of a system.

6.

Current concern is shifting toward the analysis
and development of systems for handling materials
on farms*

This appears logical.

The development

of a solution to a materials handling problem
must be reduced to working on the specific oper­
ations involved.

The solution with respect to

me thod and equipment for a particular operation
should, however, be considered in relation to
other operations and equipment in the over-all
system for that farm.

Significance of Materials Handling
on the Farm
The farmstead of a livestock farm is a processing
plant where the raw materials such as hay,

grain,

water and concentrates are converted into milk,
meat.

When considered in this respect,

silage,

eggs or

the importance of

materials handling procedures as a principle factor in
production efficiency is apparent.

As in industrial

8

processing plants, materials handling on the livestock farm
is essentially a matter of movement from one processing
unit to the next or from one location to another without
involving a process.

Also,

as in industry, materials h a n d ­

ling on the farm involves storage, physical processing,
continuous metering, bulk quantity control,
cessing and blending.

chemical p r o ­

The similarity extends further to

the disposal of waste products such as corn cobs and manure
sind the handling of plant materials such as bedding.
The tonnage of materials handled on a livestock farm,
while small compared to industrial plants,
in terms of effort involved.

is substantial

In a modest livestock enter­

prise, such as a twenty cow dairy herd,

the annual tonnage

of materials involved would be about 500 tons

(28).

Much

of this material would be handled five or six times or more
so that the tonnage handled annually could well be in the
range of 2,000 tons or ig, 000,000 pounds.

On larger farms

these quantities would be proportionally greater.
The Importance of the materials handling problem is
not, however,

essentially a function of its magnitude

(21).

It is rather a function of the proportion of total effort
which materials handling represents.

Materials handling

on livestock farms represents a large portion of the effort
required in such enterprises.
Mechanization of field operations has shifted the peak
labor loads to the farm buildings.

About one third of all

9

farm xvork, including-cash crop enterprises,
Oil).

is done

The percentages for livestock enterprises

considerably higher as illustrated in Figure 1.

there

(2) are
As shown,

eighty percent of the total work in milk and poultry enter­
prises is performed in and around farm buildings.

This

work is nearly all expended in materials handling operations,
especially on poultry production.
The percentages are somewhat lower but still substan­
tial in enterprises involving hogs,

cattle and sheep;

the

figures being about Lj.0, 30 and. 25 percent respectively.
with poultry,

As

this work is practically all connected with

materials handling.
Furthermore (Ipl), when the size of these various
enterprises

is considered and the actual hours are recorded,

the production of milk and eggs accounts for over half of
the hours of work performed in and around farm buildings in
the United States.

In the light of the importance of dairy

and poultry enterprises in Michigan, materials handling is
surely a primary factor in agricultural production effic iency.

Relationship of Farmstead Mechanization
to Far m Operation
The degree and nature of mechanization and other labor
saving procedures of materials handling operations which
can be effectively applied is directly related to the
nature of the livestock program.

Self-feeding of grain is

Figure

1*

\1iork done

in and

around

farm

buildings

in

the

United

State

10

11

accepted as a sound production practice for hogs, while it
is not .for beef cattle or dairy cattle.

Shelled corn is

commonly fed to hogs while ground ear corn is the more
commonly used for feeding beef cattle.

The requirements of

handling equipment and procedures are therefore different.
General production practices for a given type of live­
stock also influence the materials handling problems.
example,

For

the materials handling requirements are consider­

ably different for a stanchion system dairy operation as
compared to a loose housing system.

Self-feeding of hay

and silage from ground level storage is well suited to
loose housing operations, while in stanchion barns roug h ­
ages must be moved and distributed to the cows.

Whether or

not roughages are self fed in turn affects the possible
field harvesting procedures.

Likewise

the most efficient

method of feeding hogs depends upon whether they are being
pastured or fed in a dry lot; whether sows are farrowed in
portable houses or in a central house*

Also involved in

these alternatives is the problem of manure removal*
A third relationship is that between suitable handling
methods and type of materials
enterprise.
this respect.

involved for a given type of

Geographical location has a primary effect in
Different areas are adapted to different

types of roughage,

different grains,

different commercial

supplements and different storage requirements.

Horizontal

silos are more suited to drier and better drained areas.

A

12

farmer near Detroit may have access

to economical brewers

grain, while one near a New York Central terminal may find
it desirable to buy soy bean meal in large bulk lots*
Their handling requirements are different from those of an
operator who buys 32 percent protein supplement in bags*
The form, as well as the physical characteristics of the
material,
differ.

including the flow and bridging properties,
Many mechanical units which work well for handling

soy bean meal are not at all suitable for brewers grain or
bulk bran.
Fourthly, farmstead materials handling operations are
often directly associated with field operations.

Whether

corn is harvested with a picker or with a picker-sheller,
has much effect on methods and equipment for handling it*
Harvesting method may affect metliods
vating,

distribution in storage;

of unloading,

ele­

removal, metering, blend­

ing, grinding and perhaps even feeding if grinding is not
included.
It is obvious then,

that materials handling problems

and requirements are highly dependent on nearly all harvest­
ing and livestock management practices.

Sometimes p r o ­

duction practices can be modified to accommodate certain
desired material handling methods.

More often, however,

it

is more sound to establish production practices on other
bases and the problem is then one of fitting and reconciling
materials handling methods

to them.

13

Mechanization Versus Labor Inputs
Resources Involved in agricultural production can be
either technical complements or technical substitutes

(20 ).

They are considered technical complements when they must be
provided In somewhat fixed proportions.
size of a dairy herd is increased,

For example,

if the

the physical facilities

and feed quantities must be Increased nearly proportionally.
Technical substitutes on the other hand are resources
which can be interchanged or reshuffled while production
remains constant.

Labor input and investment in feed han d ­

ling machinery are then technical substitutes.

When one is

increased the other may be decreased for a given production
level•
While there are many other types of resources involved
in planning an over-all farm program,

this study is con­

cerned primarily with the relationship between mechanization
and labor.

When these two resources are considered further,

a complicating difference is discovered.

Labor input may be

considered a theoretically continuous factor while mechani­
zation is largely accomplished in discrete steps.

Machines

are manufactured in certain discrete sizes with fixed
capacities and thus represent a category of indivisible
factors.

The indivisibility of these units can be overcome

if the services rendered instead of the units themselves
are considered.

This, however,

leads to hiring machinery

or custom work which introduces serious and often costly
management problems.

34

Labor also in some areas may be essentially a discrete
factor in the balance against machinery*

There are several

reasons why seasonal or temporary help may not be practical
in certain situations*

When this is the case, labor too

becomes an indivisible factor where

the smallest unit is the

full time worker.
The effect of indivisibility is illustrated in Figure 2
(20).

In this illustration,

labor is considered a continu­

ous variable.
The presence of corners such as a, b, c, d, e and f
on a product contour, give rise to important impli­
cations.
Any one of the corner combinations causes
factor combinations at these points to be highly
stable.
Price ratios have to change outside of wide
ranges before substitution is profitable.
The ratio
of machine price to labor price must vary by more than
the difference in the slopes cb and b h if an original
machine-labor combination at b is to be discarded as
unprofitable.
This is the reason why farmers often
cling to given techniques as factor prices and farm
costs vary.
This reasoning appears sound and significant in any
consideration of farmstead mechanization as well as in field
operations upon which it is based.

In considering its

application to the area of this study there are several
observations which seem pertinent.
1.

The discrete nature of mechanization units is less
severe with field machinery because the invest­
ments are smaller and more variable due to varying
degrees of mechanization of a particular operation.

2.

Few farms are operating at a 'corner 1 combination
point.

15

O

4->
o
CJ

’tH
*H

C\i

c

cv
cv

iO
•iH
£
CD

o

-4->

■H

C\i

£

o

o

O
CD
rC>
o
Fh
a,

£

to

/,Q
4 — ■'
*H

•H

o

*H
+->

o
vO
rH

CD

-H
J~>
-j
G

C

o

o

G

•H
G
O

o

rH

C3

/

rd

/

o

O
C>i
.—1

sn

o
o

CD

o
o
rH

J»

O
HO

o

O
vO

C
5
>

C 5
iV
■— !
-H> LQ

C. 3

O -+-'
G

- H

O

O

C D

O

H

'O G
o
CH

r—<D-i

G

I
—1

•g

I f ' r i - ..

SM IH O V r

o

en
G
a.
M
O
G
<
G

O
o
M
33
O
:.)
CD
£
G
G
•0
ri
H
0
G
c^
O
O
G
rJ
G
O
G
G
«
Oi

G)

S
H
'“’I
•rJ

16

3#

It is doubtful that many farmers are adhering to
their current or past procedures because of the
relative slopes of the production contours on
either side of their location.

I4..

It might well be desirable for an operator to
modify his machine-labor combination,

even though

price relationships have changed little pr none
since its inception;

if it were not originally

the most satisfactory.
5-

The observation that is most significant w ith
respect to this study is that there exists pra cti­
cally no data from which to determine the p r o ­
duction contours,

determine

desirable corner points.

slopes and locate the

It is intended that

material assembled in this field study will be
applicable to such programming pr o cedures.

Intangible Factors
There are several factors which Influence the
planning of materials handling which can not be evalu­
ated in engineering or economic terms.

Indeed,

these

factors can be evaluated only In the abstract manner
and then only by the individuals directly concerned.
Their value whether positive or negative with respect
to any particular alternative will depend on such
things as local sociological conditions and the atti­
tude, physical condition, philosophy and personal

17

objectives of the individual operator.
The author recalls a comment often made by Professor
E. W. Lehmann,

outstanding pioneer of agricultural engi­

neering,

"Thank goodness farmers do not operate by economics

alone"♦

Few would challenge the factuality of this state­

ment and not many would contest the philosophy involved.
the other hand,

it must be remembered that failures

operations are,

in the final analysis, based on economics

alone.

On

in farm

Other factors must, however, be recognized and con­

sidered in connection with planning procedures and systems
for performing materials handling operations.
The human f a c t o r . -

Efficiency in the performance of

any particular operation depends much upon the character­
istics of the individual involved (L|d).
Certain human characteristics such as skill in using
a method, the effort exerted and working conditions
greatly influence the workers rate of activity.
The
dexterity of some people in the use of their hands
may make them more productive than others in spite
of methods used*
On the other hand the attitude of
a person toward his work may completely offset the
advantage of a good method.
Farm work simplification
must direct attention to both the job and the worker.
This same source

(IgL) discusses the physical strength

of a worker as a factor in determining operating methods.
Age, physical stature and general health are all involved
here, but they do not permit general evaluation nor p r e­
evaluation .
Another characteristic of primary importance In con­
nection with mechanization is mechanical aptitude.

Even

18

the best engineered unit may fail to function satisfactorily
under the influence of an incompetent operator.

In m ec h an i ­

zation this factor is eliminated only with complete auto­
mation,

The automatic water system, now commonly used,

is

an example of independence from operator ability.
Family l a b o r . women and children

Much of the work on farms is done by

(if-1).

Their energy is adapted to more

jobs and greater effectiveness by mechanization and other
forms of work simplification.

Indeed, young people and

their objective appraisal of work methods have been and
are responsible for much mechanization and work simplifi­
cation.
The term ‘farm family*

can not be directly and con­

versely associated with the term ‘family f a r m 1.

With a

high percentage of all farms can be associated a ‘farm
f a m i l y 1.

The proportion of ‘family farms'

considerably smaller and is reported,
be decreasing
farms
(27)*

(20).

is, however,

often with alarm,

to

From 1950 to 1955 approximately 20,000

in Illinois went out of existence as separate units
All the aspects of the desirability of this shift to

larger operating units are not directly relevant to this
discussion.

Suffice it to point out that the larger scale

operations involve more non-family labor and thus less
family scale enterprises.

From the standpoint of mechani­

zation and production efficiency,
sound (Ip2 ).

this Is essentially

19

On the Increasing number of farms where hired labor is
involved the question of mechanization,
capital for labor,
terms.

or substitution of

can be evaluated in physical and economic

To do this, however,

the effect of mechanization on

labor required for various operations must be known.
The evaluation in specific terms of capital

investment

in machinery as a substitute for labor become difficult when
the labor in question is or becomes family labor.

Pew, if

any, would attempt to put a dollar value on the educational,
disciplinary and emotional effect of family youth partici­
pation in the responsibilities of managing and operating a
farm business.

Absolute evaluation becomes a reality,

however, when it becomes economically Impossible
operation on a small, however long established,
The Intangible

to continue
scale.

*fringe benefits' mentioned above are

not exclusive characteristics of the
rather of the 'farm family'.

'family farm', but

The enjoyment of these b e n e ­

fits does not preclude the recognition and adoption of
technological developments.
complementary.

Indeed,

they may be considered

Acceptance of this theory makes the evalu­

ation of these intangibles immaterial.
Availability and reliability of l a b o r . -

The nature

of the labor supply in a given area is a highly significant
factor in determining operating methods.

In ma ny industrial

areas the cost of hired labor may be prohibitive.

In other

areas and for irrelevant reasons labor may not be available

20

for hire.

In such situations

the substitution of capital

through physical equipment for labor may not be a question
but a necessity.
In reality,

Manual handling of materials ma y not be,

an alternative.

Quality and reliability of hired labor is another
factor to be considered.

Incompetence or failure of the

hired man to report for work may prove extremely costly for
a farm operator in certain seasons and disturbing and in­
convenient, to say the least,

in all seasons.

illustrated (not proven) by an example.
Gardner,

Illinois,

This m ay be

Edward Vitko of

operated 160 acres with 36 dairy cows

with one full time hired man from 19l|6 to 1951.

Paying

£>3,000 per year plus house and other benefits, he became

1fed up* with trying to obtain and. retain a good man.

In

1951 he invested approximately $ 6,000 in an automatic feed
grinding system, automatic conveying equipment, a barn
cleaner,

a silo unloader and a pipe line milking system (26).

Since 1951 he has operated on the same scale without a
hired man but with more participation by his wife and young
daughter.

This increased family participation was made

possible by mechanization.
*farm family*

This is also an example of a

enterprise being converted to a ’family f a r m 1

by mechanization.

21

Principles of W ork Simplication
The factors and operations involved in farm work
simplification have been summarized into five items

(i|l) •

1,

Eliminate all unnecessary work.

2.

Simplify the hand and body motions used in doing
the work.

3*

Provide more convenient arrangement of wor k and
location of materials for doing the work.

L{..

Increase the adequacy,

suitability and use of

equipment needed for the work.
5.

Organize the work routine for full and effective
use of men and machines.

These five items of consideration in work simplifi­
cation may be further summarized as a critical examination
of the following:

1.

Operations required.

2.

Operator efficiency.

3.

Farmstead arrangement.

1|_.

Physical equipment.

5.

Work pattern.

Principles of work simplification more specifically
directed toward materials handling on livestock farms are
listed (28) as:

1.

Do away with unnecessary work.

2.

Use gravity wherever possible.

3.

Let livestock do the work

whenever practical.

22

I]_.

Reduce distances.

5.

Handle feed in bulk

form rather

than in

small

batches.

6.

Mechanize hand operations.

7.

Select versatile equipment.

It is significant to note that

’m e c h a n i z a t i o n 1 appears

near the end of each list of principles.
inthat capital investment in

This is

machinery should

logical

not be con­

sidered if the operation can be eliminated or performed as
efficiently by other means.

It is important that any p a r ­

ticular operation be considered as one component of the
over-all system rather than an independent entity;

it is

not uncommon for an apparent solution to one operation to
be completely incompatible with other operations or desira­
ble management practices.
The objectives of this study are related directly to
evaluation of procedures and equipment involved in items 1 ,

2, 3, 5 and 6.
The design and development of systems for handling
materials is an engineering problem.

The justifications of,

and needs for, improved systems are, however,
economic.

essentially

The inseparability of engineering and economic

considerations is evident in each of the fore mentioned
lists of principles.

These lists are essentially the same;

one being compiled by an Agricultural Economist and the
second by an Agricultural Engineer.

23

Mr. B. A. Moski,
manager

an industrial engineer and a plant

(30 ), considers materials handling principles from

a slightly different standpoint.

As an engineer preparing

material for other engineers, he finds it necessary to dis­
cuss materials handling principles in terms of economic
effects as well as engineering methods.

W it h slight m o d i ­

fication of terms for agricultural applications

these

principles are:
1.

As materials handling does not increase the value
of a product, the entire cost of handling is an
economic waste.

2.

The objective of all materials handling analyses
is the elimination of all handling.

3*

If materials handling cannot be eliminated, it
is necessary to minimize the frequency and
distance of all handling as well as the use of
all manual effort.
The cost of actual travel is generally small
in comparison with the cost of unloading,
loading, lifting, lowering and storing materials.

5>.

Maximum use should be made of gravity and power
to replace manual effort, because of the result­
ant decreased costs.

6.

An uninterrupted flow of materials to processing
and production centers serves to increase labor
productivity by minimizing delays in processing
op er ations.

7.

A n ideal system consists of each productive
operation being performed while the material is
progressing to the n e x t ‘operation.

While these principles were prepared for application
to industrial engineering they also apply to agricultural
engineering.
principle

One important factor which brings in another

is the fact that some of the processing units on

farms are animals and,
judgment.

therefore, have mobility and limited

This makes it possible

to consider letting liv e­

stock do some of the work.
Another factor for consideration,

especially with r e ­

spect to continuous flow and use of equipment,

is that most

materials handling operations on the farm are seasonal in
nature.

This makes

equipment for more
In this list

it* desirable to consider versatility of
than one use to increase its annual use.

(30) also, mechanization Is not particu­

larly prominent in the order of presentation.

It is brought

into consideration only after other methods of eliminating
manual effort have been found Inapplicable.
As with all general principles,

these cannot be applied

alone for the solution of a specific problem or the design
of a particular system.

The development of a solution or

recommendation must be based upon principles applied through
and by means of specific data on requirements,
and effect of alternatives.

conditions

Such data is lacking for the

application of engineering to material handling on farms.
Hence,

the heed for this and other studies.

Trends in Mechanization and Production
on Farms in the United States
Mention has already been made of increasing investments
in machinery on farms and the shift toward fewer but larger
operating farm units.
various references

There is much evidence of this in

and particularly in United States Census

25

reports.

It might.well be suspected from the numerous

abandoned farmsteads observed in passing through farming
areas,

that the land is being farmed but has bee n combined

with an adjoining or near-by farm for a larger enterprise.
Figure 3 illustrates

the trends in machinery invest­

ments, production and hired labor on farms In the United
States since 1870.

These curves up to 191+5 (20) indicate

a 1+50 percent increase in machinery and equipment and a
350 percent

increase

in production.

A substantial portion

of the increased production must be attributed to clearing
new land and bringing it into production.
account for much of the increase

This would also

in mechanization.

The data plotted for 1950 are from a different source
(1+0 ) but adjusted to be consistent w i th the earlier figures.
They Indicate a continued rapid upward trend both in pro­
duction and mechanization.
The amount of hired labor Increased during the period
1870 to 1910 but at a relatively low rate.

Since 1910

hire d labor has declined steadily even though production
has more than doubled.

Mechanization, primarily of field

operations, must be largely credited with this.
Hired labor is, however,
farm labor supply.

only part of the over-all

The number of farm units has been,

is, dropping as shown in Table I.

As a result of this the

number of operators and amount of family labor has de­
creased also.

and

26

800

700

600

500
Machinery
and Equipment

300
Farm Qutost

00
jr Employed ^abor

100
1370 1380 1390 1900 1910 1920 1930 1910 1950 1960
Figure 3. Total volume of farm machinery and
equipment, output and employment in the United States*
Volume in terms of 1935-39 dollars*
Index numbers,
1370-100.
(References 20 and 10)

27

TABLE I
NUMBER OF FARMS AND ACRES FARMED IN
MICHIGAN (FROM U.S. CENSUS R E P O R T S )
Number
of Farms
1900
1910
1920
1930
19I4.O
1950

203 ,261
206,960
196,1^7
169,372
187,589
155,589

Acreage
in Farms

18,9^ 1,000
19,033,000
17,119,000
18,038,000
17,270,000

Combining the effects of increased, production and
trends In hired and operator labor the production per
worker approximately doubled in the half century preceding

1920; then again almost tripled in the following thirty
years with the introduction of the internal combustion
tractor with power machinery*

The latter statement is

further demonstrated in the Farm Output column of Table II*
The total farm production indices went from I4.7 to 137 in
the period 1920 to 1955;

slightly less than tripled.

A comparison of the data for crops and livestock in
Table II also reveals some differences in efficiency trends.
Crop production per man hour has increased to nearly LOO
percent since 1919 while livestock production efficiency
has less than doubled.

This, adds support to the .contention

that farmstead mechanization has not kept pace with m e c h a ­
nization of field operations.

28

tr^"« r~*
• r~i

o
o

o

CO

'4
(H

4

o
c o

c o

to

co

o
V\

VO

4

IT'
02

fn

c 2

C2

CO

rH

O

0)
C
L
>
' 4

(7<

_-V

f H

0 2

VO

SO
N

V O

VO
C O

4
V\

4

vO

SO
n

r H

to

sO
02

02

-4

i
—1

rH

o

t>

H

rC i

t j
a

O

.-1
C
O p.d
so
4
J

*2.'
■
”T*

r J
-t
-H

o
t

7Z

o

4
oi

H

P C
l O
a.,

VO

4

4

4)
CO

CH
4-

to
CO

CO
-4

VO
CO

H

*4

vO
4

CO
■ 4

-4- 'D
vs.
4

co
co

O

xD

4

4

o
to

02

02

*—I

t o

CO
4

I
—I

CO

O'.

I

CO

vO
vo

10
ce

4
<

P H
4
p— r

t:H C

h—S

4
£H

4
4
o
: - - j1
f-H
c-1 ■
— 3

o

4

u

n

r o
O

.a'
4 i (Tx

■o

- H

a t
-pi

4

e

4
r e
~h
4

t n

:

p h

4
o
4 "

<

- p
.— j

4
.-r
n

0 2

VO ,

t>

H

r-

to
4

H
to

Ovi

to

-4* vO
O
i
—i

C4

1Y 1

rH

o
a ,

5
O
i-d

h

O

•H

n

7 ^

re
• H

VO

D

t o
4 )

s O

HD
vO

co
4

o
o

o
o

O
!— !

■0
■“ i-— *

\r
i— '

C:

rz
73
4^

.7

i'd

Cu
^4

CD
* ,o

to

to

v O
t o

O
o

t o

CO

to

uo

O

to
o

02
O

r4o

• H
$e
■- - s

■/.-

•

<D
o

,y<
j.

H
t >

,-T

0 2
1 4

o

4
4

o
4

02

> >

£
—

, j r H

< 4

03

— ■!
- H
O

■H

A)

*

• J

■a,

02

4

02

t o

i
—I

<

H
a

EH

1 4

'H
tD
>

1- -

- p

Fh
(.0

- -4
-H'

Cx.,

o

4

r -

i
— !

O

4~

VO

v s

'■O

t
o
uo

vO

to

CO

o
-< r>

'O

02

4

co

o

o

i

CJ>

i

0 s-

O

CO

rH

C"2

C 2

C O

O

rH

(

O
'

c o

O

4

rH

rH

c*
n

rH

4

—I

co
VO

e—-I
r

VO
VO
o

r-t

*

a>
-4^

'!> 1 H
> » H O o
—
<p od
(— ^ ^ , o
H
r W
<.V> C ;
P
4 1
«s ! 3
ft) r~7

r— ^
as

V
a
a

r H
- H

rj

£2

03
C O

4f>

a>

'-0

c

O

c:
ct

a

■f)

O

C D

3
1

Ct
• r-l

V

H . J -- - 1
r ,
• H
CO
6
:'n
n-H
H

o

c
o

v '.

t—

t o

4

o
o

r s

• H
Cl

,—t
r~ *
CC

it

r

V
r o

c

C O

c
H

o

ct

'o
- e
:£]

*
4
• H - W
C
4
►T— • O
< H
< H

o

4!

. P

V

h

■O

rH

o

;i

- 4

t >
-h
0 s‘— )
'- - - '

4
o t
H 1

c_,

•e
O
•V

c
*<H sc
r
J 3
O
c :

•■N
-U>
:h
> * oj
•p
t
; ; _J!

it X3 C 4 o <H

INVESTIGATIONAL PROCEDURE

Because it was desired to obtain information relative
to mechanization of materials handling on Michigan livestock farms

in general,

it was necessary to study a

rather large number of farms selected in a manner to p r o ­
vide a representative sample*

A limited number of example

or case s t u d y farms could not provide the desired material
It was recognized that the farm operations to be
studied were subject to extreme variations due to varying
local conditions,

economic levels,

attitudes, family size,
buildings,

etc*

operator aptitudes and

condition of farm,

In order to minimize

arrangement of

the influence of

variations caused by indirectly related factors it was
doubly important that the number of farms studied be large
It was decided that the study should include at least
320 farms*

The number of farms studied and the amount of

information obtained from each farm made
for one person to make

the study.

it impractical

The Consumers Power

Company made the services of its twenty-two Farm Service
Advisors available for securing field data.

These data

were collected during October and November 1956 after a
^The term 'livestock farms' is used here in its broad
sense to include dairy and poultry farms rather than the
Census Bureau definition which includes only hogs, beef
cattle and sheep.

30

series of four regional

orientation and kick-off meetings

w it h the F arm Service Advisors,

Each Advisor worked with

approximately fifteen farmers.

Informat ion Desired
For purposes of clarity,

in explaining the type and

various classifications of material obtained from each
farm,

copies of the original data sheets are included on

the following four pages in essentially the same form as
they were used.

31

General
O p e r a t o r ’s name __________________
Interviewer's name
Owner operated

,
__________

____________'

Farm No*___________________
County

___________

Tenant ____________________

Total acreage _____________________ Operator's age
(both owned and rented)

.

Man months/year __________
(family)
(hired)
(consider children over 12 and under l£> as half-man for
time they work)
(include custom work as hired labor)
Livestock
Dairy cattle: __________

(cows) __________

(young cattle)

Beef cattle: ___________

(cows) __ _______

(feeders per year)

Hogs:__ __________________

(sows) __________

(marketed per year)

Sheep: __________________

(ewes) __________

(marketed per year)

Poultry (per year) ____

(layers) _______ (broilers or fryers)
(turkeys)

Use of Time Saved by Use of Feed Handling Equipment
Check one

(or more if applicable)

1* _____

Expanded production

2. _____

Reduction of labor supply

3 . _____

More leisure time

_____

Care and maintenance of machinery
More time and care devoted to other production
activities

6.

Needs:

More time for community and service activities
(Farm Bureau, political, church, i|-H, etc)

What feed handling operations need new or improved
equipment most critically?

32

Feed Handling Operations
Material

Operation
Unloading

tons/yr

Me tho d*«1, 2, 3, Man hrs/
ton ■**•#
U. or 5

(from field)

Distributing in mow
Removal from mow
•n
<D
'd ft ©
<D ft ra

Moving to feeding point
(including loading and
unloading)

pH O O
Gj & O

I

fflO M

Silage

Feeding
Unloading

(from field)

Distributing in silo
Removal from silo

rH
aS

1—1

-p

csS

p

o

Moving to feeding point
(including loading and
unloading)

O
•r-t
fcQ
4-5 O ««-4 O
ft rH ft rH
© •!—! O *H
>* to th w

Feeding

Bedding

Unloading

(from field)

Distribution in storage
Removal from storage

"3

©

'ft

Moving to area of use
(including loading and
u nl o ad i ng )

© Pi fctO <£>

H

O ft

n

O-P

CQOJO

*

(1)
(2)
(3)
(i|)
(5)

Distribution in area,
of use
Eliminated - operation not included in farmers program.
Manual - shoveling, pitching, pushing, carrying, etc.
Semi mechanized - such as lifting or shoveling feed on
to an elevator.
Mechanized - requires an operator but no hand labor.
Automatic - such as barn cleaners, silo unloaders,
self feeders, etc.

Include time of setting up, changing loads, starting
machinery, etc.

33
Feed Handling Operations

Material
Manure

Operation

Method * Man hrs^
tons/yr 1 9 ^ , 3 9 ton 4H*
U or 5

Removal from stable
Transporting to pile
Loading into spreader
Unloading

Small grain
(including
soy beans
and shelled
corn)

Moving into storage

Concentrates

Unloading

Removal from storage

Moving into storage
Removal from storage
Ear Corn

Unloading
Removal into storage
Removal from storage

Ground feed

Grinding and blending
Moving to feeding point
(including loading and
unloading)
Feeding
..

&

(1)
(2)
(3)
(Ij.)
(5)

■
jmj-

. .

L-....................

Eliminated - operation not included in farmers program.
Manual - shoveling, pitching, pushing, carrying, etc.
Semi mechanized - such as lifting or shoveling feed on
to an elevator.
Mechanized - requires an operator but no hand labor.
Automatic - such as barn cleaners, silo unloaders, self
feeders, etc.
Include time of setting up, changing loads, starting
m a c h i n e r y , etc.

Item
(If a farmer is using
more than one of a pa r­
ticular item give totals
for costs and hours used
and averages for age and
life)

Auger elevator
Chain or belt elevators
Blowers
Grain bi n unloaders or
meters
Unloading wagons
Barn cleaner
Mechanical feeder
Grain dispensers
Self feeders
Tractor manure loaders
Silage distributors
Feed carts
Track type litter carrier
Hay hoist
Hammer mill
Burr mill
Other type feed grinder
Corn sheller
Feed mixer

£

oooj
t
•

£

O

bO co
• £
CD

©

—-rO

co
£

O
o
S

ft
bO
£

© |—«
—!
•£
£
pH ft
rH
©
03
rQ -P ft O
CO £
S H £
3 <d cd O
O
!s; co o
CD
•• ©

o

m

CD f t

•

ft £

o
cd
-P
ft •. ©
co

<D
£ O
£ £!>>•'
cd aS• H <D - P
£ Cd h £
© CD ft I— i »rH
-P
© £ cd
£
£ £ ft pj
ft » r H ■
o Gj
co c
£ £• -P
-p
»r-l
CO

50

o
o

as «H
CD ©

©

•r-l
£

O
£
W
©

CO

ft cd
o

© PH
©

rH W

ft

©

£ p
© p

£

cd
©

*CJ cd
bCjft Is £
•HI
cd ©
ft £ o
cd ft O o
©Sis
cd o o
bOl©
r£
rH
O
^l£
©

Total years of
expected life
Ttnciudtng age)
Hours used per year
for all uses

Feed Handling Equipment

35

Statistical Design
The farms to be studied were selected on the following
basis by the men doing the field work*
1.

Livestock farms only*

2.

Avoid farms which might be considered

’show f a r m s ’

ora w hich the economic status is supplemented by
industrial money or outside income of any type.
3.

Farms to be distributed geographically about the
service area of the man doing the field work.
Each farm studied should make use of at least one
of the items of equipment listed on page four of
the field data form.

5*

The farms should be selected randomly as far as
possible within the restrictions mentioned above.

It was recognized that the selection procedure would
likely result In a somewhat biased sample of livestock
farms.

Item four,

cause a bias

in particular, would be expected to

toward the more highly mechanized farms.

Inasmuch as this is a study of the effects of mechanization,
this possible bias was considered necessary and, indeed,
d es i ra b le .
The breakdown of classifications of data for statisti­
cal analysis is:
1.
2*
3.

Types of materials
Operations

-

Involved

Methods per operation

8
-

30
-

5

36

[j.*

Replication per method - variable.

Other classification criteria for further breakdown
of data in analysis are:
1.

Owner or tenant operated.

2.

Type of livestock enterprise.

3.

Form of hay and bedding

Ip.

Vertical or horizontal silos.

(baled,

chopped

or loose).

Man y of the data obtained from each farm were needed
for classification purposes and for secondary analyses.

The

data considered of primary and direct interest were the manhours per ton figure for performing various operation by one
of five methods under different conditions.

The study was

designed for the use of analyses of variance procedures
(10, 11, 37) in the analysis of these primary.data.

It was

also anticipated that tests of correlation of certain data
would be run.

Data Processing and Analysis
The facilities and mechanical procedures of the com­
puter laboratory were used because of the large amount of
data to be processed,

analyzed and tabulated.

The raw data

s.

were transferred from the original data forms to punched
cards.

In many cases the data required some intermediate

processing

before

they coulc. be put on cards.

Eight data

cards were required for each farm studied.
The arrangement of the data on the cards is not direct­
ly relevant.

Suffice it to say that some of the data had to

37

be coded for entry into the cards while, the numerical data
could be entered directly.
Much of the tabulating and classification was done on
the IBM 601+ electronic computer.

The interpreting unit was

also used for removing intermediate and final data from the
cards•
The analysis of variance procedures which were planned
to be used were shown early in the analysis work to be in­
appropriate.

One of the basic assumptions upon which analy­

sis of variance procedures are based is that the various
classifications of data being compared have the same under­
lying distribution (10).

That the means are equal is the

hypothesis being tested.

That they all have the same normal

distributions and homogeneous variances are, however,

assump­

tions which must hold true for the test of means to be valid.
The data obtained in this study failed to satisfy the
Bartlett test of homogeneity of variance

(37)*

Thus the

analysis of variance procedure could not be used.
A form of Student's T test of differences was then used
in place of analysis of variance.
items,

Because the numbers of

in various classifications to be compared were not

equal,- the conventional Student T test could not be used.
Rather it was necessary to use the modified test (11) devel­
oped by Cochran and Cox where the applicable T value for a
given level of significance had to be calculated and weighted
according to the two numbers of items involved.

This pr o­

cedure was valid and actually was advantageous as compared

36

to analysis of variance because the specific differences
were automatically located.

ANALYSIS CP DATA AND DISCUSSION
OP RESULTS
Nature of Parms Studied
The 320 Michigan farms included in this study were
selected so as to represent an unbiased sample of livestock
farms using some degree of mechanization In materials han d­
ling.

There is no information available for use in deter­

mining to what degree this was accomplished.

If such data

were available the need for this study would have been con­
siderably less.

This sample is not considered to be rep­

resentative of all Michigan farms nor even of all Michigan
livestock farms.

It is, however,

considered to be rep­

resentative of the universe defined above.
Geographical distribution. -

All of the farms studied

are in the lower peninsula of Michigan.

This is not con­

sidered a significant source of bias because of the rel a­
tively small amount of livestock in the upper peninsula.
Also the upper peninsula conditions are similar to the con­
ditions

In the lower peninsula north of Clare county and the

sample is weighted slightly above this line considering the
amount of livestock there.

This may reasonably be considered

to compensate for the limited amount of livestock in the
upper peninsula.
Figure 1+ shows the distribution of farms studied by
counties.

The only significant void area is in the Thumb

40

j “ CHAKL

T S1 6 0 M O N JMOA. \ A l F Z HA

A N '* i i* 4 ^

I-

A t COHA

KASHA k!CHA W F P I OSCODA
KAi t KASKA
6 * 0 r#AY

WE X t OMD

LANS

iO C fA N A

,-„k
N t H A Y i ,C

SCFO l A

\CLAK£

!/

;y
\

Tl S C O L A \ S A * , l.AC

" \ SHATt CT ~"\sAC)HAH

/f

j o
\-H TO H

2

M

2

3

' M O D f CA L M

:

u i L A O H IH ' AHCHA

/

2
<?

i

g

!3

7

9

/M A S O N

2

O G F M A W f OS C 0

M S U O H / f ] # 0 5 COM

1

J2

!0

/

3

< s

SA AH A
\

6

\ccAisee '
f l ’’ \ \

j
\

2

&

OAAl ANC

AlltG A*

\oAHffr

jf A To

|6

jo

1

M/V B O H t H j A A t A M A

3

" pAj/M*

\C*t*OuH

J-f

^JA.KSCH

J?

] o’

* f

1

/
l

M AC0M 8\

\iYH 6STfi|

S ' J3
-- .--- — r— L_

iTj0SC7H\BAa»Cii

A

n

I

------ L-,---

^ H A S h ’ C' i A H ) N A r * f

17
"h ^<.S&ALt\tCMAH£l

'mOHOCI

\

\

/

f

\

L — I

1

2

1

i

M

S

i

Figure
Geographical distribution by
counties of farms included in this study.
L

.

a

>

ia

region,

This is compensated for to some extent by the large

number of farms studied in Genesee and Saginaw counties.

In

other areas the numbers are about proportional to the amount
and nature of livestock farms.

The relatively heavy concen­

trations around Ingham, Kalamazoo and Kent counties are
caused by the major cities and the related markets for milk
and other livestock products,
Types of livestock enterprises. -

Table III shows the

breakdown of types of livestock enterprises on the farms in­
volved.

It will be noted that the average number of live­

stock enterprises per farm is more than two.

This

includes

m a n y farms which were specialized in one type of livestock.
There were also m any farms which had three to five classes
of livestock.
Also included In Table III. is the breakdown of farm
classifications by type of livestock.

If a given type of

livestock on a particular farm accounted for over 75 percent
of the total livestock enterprise,
fied.

that farm was so classi­

(See APPENDIX IV for conversion factors).

If no one

type of livestock accounted for as much as 75 percent of the
total livestock enterprise,

that farm was classified as

'general l ivestock*•
Dairy farms are the dominant classification and this is
in line with its importance In Michigan.
cattle farms and

Five percent beef

percent poultry farms appear at first

glance to be rather low.

It should be remembered, however,

that these figures represent only those farms where those

k2
respective enterprises are almost exclusive.

Twenty-nine

percent of the farms had some beef cattle and sixty-one
percent had some poultry.

Perhaps

these figures are more

indicative of the importance of their enterprises but they
also must be considered with an understanding of what they
represent.
TABLE III
TYPES OF LIVESTOCK ENTERPRISES
ON 320 FARMS STUDIED

Farms Having
No.
Pet.

Beef cattle

Sheep
Poultry

85.0

183

93

29.0

16

119

36.2

0

26

8.1

2

0.6

193

61.0

Ik

i+.u

Layers

1-1-7.8

•

••

....

36

H.3-

* • *

....

6

1.9

•**

....

....

103

32.8

219.3

320

100.0

Turkeys

Total

...
•••••••

5.0

153

Broilers

General

57.2

•

Hogs

271

0
0

Dairy cattle

Farm Classification
No.
Pet.

70lj_

Size of farias studied. -

Table IV gives the dlstri-

bution of acreage of farms studied in fifty acre intervals .
Approximately two- thirds of the farms are between 100 and
300 acres

in size and four-fifth .3 between 100 and I4OO acreas.

The over-all average is 238 acres.
size distribution graphically.

Figure 3 illustrates the

43

TABLE IV
ACREAGE OF 320 FARMS STUDIED
Acreage
Interval

0
$0
100
150

No.
Far_ns

r

Pet.
F arras

49
99
149
— 199

3
19
47
59

0.9
5*9
14*7
13.5

249
299
349
399

67
34
26

21.0
10.6
8.1

20

6.3

400
449
450 — 549
500
549
550
599

15
5

4*7

200
250
300

-

—
—

350

600

649

1.6

6
2

1.9

5

1.6

0.6

609

1

749
799

4

1

0.3

BOO
349
350 — 399
900 - 949
950 — 999

2
1
2
1

0.3

320

100.0

650
700
750

_
—
—

Total

Average - Over-all = 253
Owner Operated ~ 254
Tenant Operated - 277

0.3

1.2
0.6
0.6
0.3

AA
70

60

50

40

lJ T_ i

__

d30

20

10

0
0

100

200

300

600

400

700

1CBEAGE

Figure 5*

Distr Lb'ltioa of acreage
of 320 farms studtel

800

900

1000

us
The average acreage of the farms studied is somewhat
higher than the general average

for livestock farms and

considerably higher than for all Michigan farms.
however,

Here again,

there is no reason to believe that the size of farms

studied is not representative of livestock farms which are
turning to mechanization of labor consuming materials h a n d ­
ling operations.
It should be noted that the size of tenant operated
farms is greater than owner operated farms.

This might

perhaps have been expected from the standpoint that tenant
operations are often the source of livelihood for both the
tenant and the owner.

Also, often the owner participates

to a limited extent in the maintenance of physical facili­
ties •
Age of operators. in ten year intervals

The age distribution of operators

is given in Table V.

This distribution

is rather typical and might well have resulted from a random
sampling of all farms.

The principle fact to note here Is

the low percentage of operators below 30 years of age.

This

is believed to reflect the effect of large capital invest­
ments to enter farming,

even on a tenant basis.

The declining relative numbers of operators beyond £0
years of age does,

as would be expected,

show the effects

of r e t i r ements.
Age versus acreage and investment in materials handling
machinery

(Table V). -

The only significant trend with

respect to effect of age on scale of operation is in the

U6

decline in acreage operated b y operators over 60*

This may

be the result of either cutting down from their original
scale or of size of farms 20 or 30 years ago*

TABLE V
DISTRIBUTION OF AGES OF FARM OPERATORS AND RELATIONSHIP
TO FARM SIZE AND MECHANIZATION
(AVE. AGE = 1+30 )
Number of Operators
Age
Ave.
Interval Tenants Owners Both Acreage

Ave. Investment In
Materials Hand. Mach.

Under 20

1

0

1

• • •

»* •»

20 - 29

5

16

21

252

1741

30 - 39

10

90

100

256

2138

i+0 - 1*9

6

109

115

268

1971

50 - 59

6

51

57

268

2166

60 - 69

2

21

23

212

170A

3

3

203

2547

70 - 79

It will be observed that investments in materials hand­
ling equipment are lower at both ends of the age range.

In

the younger age bracket this is explained by limited capital.
In the 60 to 69 year age interval the cause is not apparent
but the decrease is significant.

The greater Investment

which is indicated for the 70 to 79 year age interval is of
questionable significance because it is based on only three
farms.

hi

Factors Involved in Analysis
of Specific Operations
A large and important portion of the information ob­
tained In this study is presented in table form in Tables
VI through XXVII.

These summarized data are related to

specific methods of performing specific materials handling
operations.

The column of particular importance in each

table is the man-hours per ton column.

These figures serve

for direct comparison of methods which might be used for
handling as well as methods of harvesting and types of stor­
age for some materials.
Definitions of the various classifications of methods
have been given previously in this thesis but they will be
repeated here because they are important in understanding
the analyses which follow.
1.

Eliminated - operation is not included in the
farm program.

2.

Manual - operations are performed completely by
hand,

3.

e.g. shoveling, pushing, and carrying.

Semi-mechanized - operations include both manual
and machine handling,

e.g. lifting bales or

shoveling feed onto an elevator.
!j_.

Mechanized - operations Involve manual effort
only for operating machinery,

e.g. bunk

feeding of cattle with an unloading wagon.
5.

Automatic - requires neither manual handling nor
a machine operator,
self feeders.

e.g. silo unloaders or

b8
S t u d e n t s 1 T test with T values modified as discussed
in the Procedure section was used to test the significance
of differences in !man-hours per ton* for the various methods
of performing a specific operation.

Significant differences

are indicated by an asterisk adjacent to a bracket between
the figures

involved.

It should be pointed out here and r e ­

membered when reviewing or using these data that the lack of
an indication of significant differences does not imply that
apparent differences are not actual.

It implies rather that

they can only, be considered actual with something less than

95 percent confidence;

some of them with 90 percent and

perhaps some with as low as 50 percent confidence.
nitude of the difference,

The m a g ­

the number of farms Involved and

the sample variances all have an effect on this confidence
level.
Figure 6 illustrates what these

1average man-hours per

ton* represent with respect to three methods of performing a
particular operation.

Both significant and non-significant

differences are illustrated*
A typical distribution of the man-hours per ton for
performing a particular operation is shown by the histogram
in Figure 7.

It will be noted that this distribution does

not assume the shape of a normal distribution.
what skewed to the left.

It is some­

This is, however, not particularly

significant in the application of Students 1 T test to means
but would in theory have a slight effect on the distribution
of the statistic T.

7

6
5

Mechand a eel

16

23

4
3
2

Mechanized

1
0

6

03 (Not significant)
08 (Significant)

NUMBER

OF FARMS

5

05 (Not significant)

4

S erai -M e c ha a I z ed

1
0
6
Average - Semi-Mechanized -*19
N - 17
S - .17

4

Average
N r 32

3
2

1
0
MAN HOURS PER TON
Figure 6 . Distributions of man hours per ton for plac­
ing Ear Corn in storage by three different methods.
This is
a typical p a t t e r n .

50

80
70

Average I ,41
Standard deviation ~ .2fl

Humber of farms - 206

6'
10
40

30
20
10
0

0

.11

31
iviAN

*41
Hu UP 0

*61
i/i-.i-

.71

»81

.91

1®Q0

Tub

Figure 7. Distribution of man hours per ton
for removal of baled bay from the nova

51

The other data included in Tables VI through XXVII might
be considered secondary or supplementary.

The number and

percentage of farms employing a given method is first an in­
dication of the extent to which that method is used.
Secondly,

it can be used as an indication of the reliability

of the labor data.

When four or less farms

are involved the

♦average man-hours per t o n 1 figure is of questionable v a ­
lidity.
The annual tonnage data are included only to indicate
the magnitude of the operation.

When considered together

with the relative number of farms involved, an indication of
the relationship between scale of operation and method
adopted is obtained.

It Is also used to obtain data for

annual labor requirements as discussed in a later section.
The data listed under the heading *95 percent l i m i t 1
represent the man-hours per ton figures which would not be
expected to be exceeded by 95 percent of such operations
using that method.

These figures were calculated statisti­

cally but are based on field data.
Because

the data

(Tables VI through XXVII) are largely

self explanatory when the system anci terms of presentation
are understood,

it is considered unnecessary and,

undesirable to discuss
sections.

indeed,

them in full detail in the following

Only the more significant and perhaps less obvious

points will be discussed.

52

Hay Handling Operations
(Tables VI, VII and VIII)
It w ill be noted that the greatest labor requirement
per ton,

In terms of man-hours.

Is, as might be expected,

wit h long-loose hay followed by baled hay and chopped hay in
that order;

the figures being 2.77* 1*57 and 1.37 man-hours

per ton, respectively.

In spite of this, baled hay Is the

most commonly used form by a wide margin.

Long-loose hay is

still used to only a very limited extent and the primary
reason is indicated by these data on time requirements.
Further justification for this is apparent when it is
realized that these data indicate only labor time and do not
evaluate the Intensity of effort involved.
loose hay is hard and disagreeable work.
contributed more

Handling longIt has, perhaps,

than any other single operation to young

m e n s ’ decisions to leave the farm.

This form of hay is

currently used to a rather insignificant extent and the
comparison of common forms

is then essentially between baled

and chopped.
Baled hay,requires more handling time than chopped hay
for ell operations except removal from the mow.

Also

chopped hay handling is more highly mechanised so that much
of the time required is used to operate equipment rather
than handling hay directly.

Baled hay handling on the other

hand involves several manual operations for each and every
round even when maximum mechanization is employed.

These

operations not only represent time consumed but very hard

TABLE VI
METHODS AMD UAN HOURS PER TON FOR HANDLING
BALED HAY
Operation and Method

No.
of
Farms

Pet.
of
Farms

Ave.'
Tons
Per Yr.

Man Hrs. Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Limi t

Unloading from Vehicle * • •
M a n u a l ...........
20
Semi-Mechanized..... 185
M e c h a n i z e d ...........
4

+-• • •
9.6
88.5
1.9

*a •
79
127
40

0.23
0.4^4
0 .2 1 '”
0.31

a ••a
0.94
0.45

Distribution in Mow
0 ••
Eliminated.
19
M a n u a l ....... .
171
S emi -M e c hani zed .....
18
1
Mechanized.

9•••
19.9
81.8
8.6
0.5

• »•
137
115
143
100

0.25
0.00
0.28
0.25
0.10

aa a a
0.00
0.67
0.48
90 ©9

Removal from Mow
♦••
2
Eliminated.
M a n u a l «.««..««*«««.. 206
1
Semi-Mechanized.....

••♦•
1.0
98.5
0.5

000

0.41

185
120
45

0.00
0.41
0.17

•» 0 0
0.00
0.82
«0 0 •

Moving to Feeding Area © m e
Eliminated.......... 110
92
Manual
Semi-Mechanized.....
4
iiec hani z e d . .........
3

* • *■•
52 .6
44*1
1.9
1.4

9 9 9

124
111
276
72

0.17
0.00
0.36
0.27
0.32

e • «182
1
Semi-Mechanized.....
26
Automatic

• •a*
87.1
0.5
12.4

»•«
111
170
148

0.51
0.58
0.83
0.00

• *» •

120

1.57

Feeding

Tot a l .......

209

a

a

•

a

0000

0.00
0.76
« • « * €

«

1.22
0 0 0 9

0.00

♦

♦

©9

-^-Statistically significant difference at 95 percent level.

54

TABLE VII
METHODS AND MAN HOURS PER TON HANDLING
CHOPPED HAY
No.
of
Farms

O p e r a t i o n and Method

Unloading from Vehicle
Semi-Mechanised...*.* 37
M e c h a n ized.*,........ 50
Distribution in Mow
E l i minated........... 42
M a n u a l ....... ....... 13
Semi-Mechanized......
4
Mechanized.
14
Auto m a tic...... .
9
.
.
.

» « » . . . » « . *

Removal from Mov/
E liminated ...... .
S
M
a
n
u
a
l
76
Semi-Mechanized,.....
3
.

Pet,
of
Farms
• >99

• * ♦

42.5
57.5

120
124

«
43.3
20.7
4*6

111
121

• • *

16.0
10.4

9 9 9

♦ 99
72.4

T

o

t

l

37

Ma n Hrs. Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Limit

0.20
.24 w
0.17

o

0.03

0.00
0.21
0.21
0.13

0.00
0.50
0.00

127

0.55
0.59

•• ♦

0.13

111

0.00

125
73

.

0.33
....

0.00
0.41
•*• *

0 .4.2
0.00
9 9 9 9

0.00
1.15
9 9 9 9

9 9 9 9

0.00
0.92

141

222

*
>e
-9 9

0 44

0.21
0.1.7

9999
9 9 9 9

0.00

0.00

» ft*
119
105

1 .4.2

26.5

122

0.46
0.62
1.00
0.00

• 9 9 9

1^22

1.37

1.1
*

a

121
158
111

Feeding
M
a
n
u
a
Semi-Mechanized.
A u t o m a t

i

159
143

9.2
87.3
3.5
♦• •*
65.5
23.3
2.3
2.3

63
• 1
c ^-3

• 99

• 9 9 9

Moving to Feeding Area
..
Elimin ated,,».«»..»«• 57
M a n u a l .««.««....»*»». ^5
Semi-Mechanized......
2
Mechanized.
2
A u t o m a t i c ..».«•».*..»
1
l

Ave,
Tons
Per Yr.

1.1

9 9 9 9

«» *
9 9*9
9

9 9 9 9

*£tatisticallv significant difference £t 95 percent level*

55

TABLE VIII
METHODS AND MAN HO URL PER TON FOR HANDLING
LOOSE HAI (LONG)
Operation and Method

No .
of
Farms

Unloading from Vehicle
M a n u a l ..••*••••.....
Semi-Mec hani ?_;ed.....
M e c h a n i z e d ....... . •.

•
1
11
1

Distribution in Mow
nianua j.

Pet*
of
Farms

*• • •

Ave.
Tons
Per .Yr.

Man Hr s . Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Limit

7.7
84*6
7.7

••
30
63
35

0.78
0.45
0.83
0.50

»•« •
»••
1.69
*♦•

•
13

•••®
100.0

*•
58

0.56
0.56

•«»
1.19

Removal from Mow
M a n u a l ...•••........

♦*
13

9 •••
100.0

»•
58

0.71
0.71

t ^
1.10

Movi n g to Feeding Area
Eliminated ...... • • • •
M a n u a l ......*........

♦

7
6

* ** •*
53.3
4.6.2

♦•
70
44

0.19
0.00

••t•
0.00
0.74

Feeding
M a n u a l ...............

#•
13

• • ••
100.0

Total

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. *

•

•

•

13

9

•

*

•

0.41

•

#

•

•

58

0.53
0.53

1.05

58

2.77

» • « •

» •

• • • •

56

work.
W h y then is hay baled on more than two-thirds of the
farms?

It is not a matter of equipment cost even though

chopped hay requires, by nature of its form, a higher
degree of mechanization*

A large portion of the operators

who bale hay also have chopping equipment which they use
for silage.

The baler then represents an added investment*

The following statements are commonly offered in defense of
baling hay.
1.

Chopped hay must be drier for safe storage than
baled hay,

2.

Chopping hay pulverizes the leaves and creates
a severe dust problem in the storage and feeding
areas *

3*

Field losses due to shattering and pulverizing
are greater for chopped h a 5r.

Lj_.

Chopped stems are harsh and cause sore mouths
In livestock.

5.

Baled hay can be stored in rather open shelters
or even stacked outside without extensive
spoilage.

6.

Baled hay may be more easily transported if the
hay is to be sold or fed at a location other
than near its storage point.

Some of these statements are valid and some are
questionable.

They are,

in either case, real to the oper­

ators expressing them, and present design and educational
challenges

to agricultural engineers.

The big advantage of

chopping over baling hay is, as shown,

that it can be more

easily and more completely mechanised.

If self feeding is

used,

all manual handling can be eliminated from chopped hay

57
operations.

This is not possible with existing equipment

for handling baled hay.
Observation of the data for specific handling operations
of b o t h baled and chopped hay, reveals that the operations of
removal from mow and feeding are in critical need of engi­
neering attention.
ations.

They are almost completely manual oper­

Mechanical equipment for their performance is n on­

existent.

The only current alternative to manual handling

is self-feeding from the mow and this is not possible with
many types of enterprises and existing storage structures.
The

importance of'hay in beef and dairy enterprises,

the

importance of these enterprises in the mid-west and the ton­
nages of hay involved should lend high priority to work in
this area.
Hay pelleting is receiving attention.

It is an example

of imagination applied to the problem rather than trying to
develop smoother fork handles or more convenient bale hooks.
Pelleting shows promise of being an answer to many handling
problems through elimination of some and adaptability of
others to mechanization.

Silage Handling Operations
(Tables IX and X)
Horizontal silos, while used to a lesser extent than
vertical silos, appear to be gaining rapidly in popularity.
There are two reasons expressed for this apparent trend.
They can be built with a low investment for temporary or

58

emergency use and can be constructed at a greater but still
relatively moderate cost for permanent use.

Secondly,

horizontal silos are well suited to self-feeding and other
procedures for minimizing handling labor.

This is shown by

the data in the tables on the following pages.

Another ob­

servation made while assembling field data for this study
is that the lower investment in horizontal silos is perhaps
of secondary importance to the users because several of them
had vertical silos standing empty.
Spoilage and wastage is one of the disadvantages of
horizontal silos.

It has been demonstrated, however,

excessive spoilage is not necessary.

that

With proper construc­

tion and good management it may be confined to as little as
five percent which is comparable to that of vertical silos.
In other cases, however,

spoilage may be as great as twenty-

five percent or even greater*
Silage handling is similar to hay handling In that on
farms where it is used, considerable tonnages are normally
Involved.

It is different, on the other hand, in that

equipment is available for complete mechanization of essen­
tial operations with either type of silo.

Feeding silage in

a stanchion type dairy barn might be considered an exception
to this but it too can be mechanized with existing mechanical
f eed ers •
The average over-all man-hours per ton of silage are
0*60 and 1.L|.7 for horizontal and vertical silos, respectively.

59

TABLE I X

METHODS AND MAN HOURS PER TON FOR HANDLING
SILAGE - VERTICAL SILOS
Operation and Method

No.
of
Farms

Unloading from Vehicle
M a n u a l ..............
9
S erui-M e c ba.ni z e d ..... 102
Mechanized.
109
999

Distribution in Silo
Eliminat ed
1-42
62
Manua^.
Serai—Mechani zed ». . . »
a
Mechanized,
6
Automatic
2
• » ^

» • # » * «

» « * « • » * «

Removal from Silo
Manuai
A u t o m a t i c ......... ..

. ♦ . » » # * * * » *

Total

9999

A.!

46.4
49.5
....

64.6
28.2
3.6
2,7
0.9

Ave.
Tons
Per Yr.
• • •

91
197
215

Man Hrs. Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Limit
0.13
0 . 21\
0.13
JI*
0.13 y

' 208
178
178
278
285

0.04
0.00
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.00

* • •

♦ 9 9

♦ 9 9 9

* « 6

0.51

196
24

89.1
10.9

178

0 .5 7

364

0.00

....

♦ • *

0.2 5

Moving to Feeding Area 9 9 9
Elimi n ated.......... 102
M a n u a l ...............
91
21
S emi-Mechanized.....
M e c h a n i z e d . .........
5
1
A u t o m a t i c ............
Feeding
Manual
Semi-Mechanized*
Autom a tic

Pet.
of
Farms

46.4
41.4
9.5
2.2
0.5

213
196
163
172

400

« * •

....

9 • •

197
9
14

89 *6

177
216
528

220

4.1
6.3

....

201

0.35
0.38
.. . .

0.00
0.27
0.24
0.22
0.00
♦ 9 9 9

1.14
0.00
• # » •

0 .00

0.00
0 . 3 5 0 ,

9 • 9 9

0.42

I

1.24

)*

0 .7 6

0.18-'
0.00

0.36
0.00

0 .5 4
°-59w
0.00

e
1.85
0.78
0.00

1 .4 7

9999

0

. '
3 6

• ♦

»

^Statistically significant difference at 95 percent level*

60

TABLE X

METHODS AND MAN HOURL PER TON FOR HANDLING
SILAGE - HORIZON AX SILOS
No.
of
Farms

O peration and Method

Unloading from, Vehicle *
Semi-Mec hani z e d ^ SSe 6
M e c h a n i z e d , , ........ 18
9

Distribution in Silo
E l i m inated......
2
M a n u a l ..............
A
Semi-Mechanized
3
M e c h a n i z e d ......... . 11
An tom a hi c.___ _ . . ____
A
• •

Removal from Silo
Eliminated.... .
M a n u a l ..........

• *

13
7

Moving to Feeding Area
Eliminated.
U

• »

M e c h a n i z e d . .....
Feeding
Manual
Mechanized.
A u t o m a tic

. . . . . . . e e .

I

♦ ♦ * *

« • » « » . »

Total.

t*r U

».

tf * * *

9 *

9 *

3
7

Pet.
of
Farms

Ave.
Tons
Per Yr.

* »
25.0
75.0

•♦•
220
330

e 9 9 9

• • #

3.3
16.7
12.5
45.8
16.7

375
135
100
395
330

9

•

• • • •

* e •

5 A -1
29.9

380
196

9 9 €
■0

• * ♦

58.3
12.5
29.2

Man Hrs. Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Li mi t
0.14
0.10
0.16
0.10
0.00
0.19
0.25
0.12
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.35

363
300
181

0.09
0.00
°-33)*
O.ll'

• •

• ♦ • •

9 • ♦

0.11

7
2
15

29.2
8.3
62.5

736
315
93

0 .11V
0.00

24

« . . .

302

0.60

•• •
0.17
0.53
*

• • • 9

0.00
9 9 9 9
♦ 9 9 9

0.30
0.00
• « • «

0.00
0.62
♦ 9 9 9

0.00
0.18
• 9 » »

0.54
. . . .

0.00

• 9 9 9

^Statistically significant difference at 95 percent level.

61

By selecting the optimum method used for each operation,
however,

these totals can be as low as 0.22 and .13 man-

hours per ton for horizontal and vertical silos.

This

assumes the use of a silo unloader and mechanical feeder in
connection with the vertical silo.

At the other extreme,

considering that each operation Is performed in the least
desirable manner shown,
1 ♦Iplp and 1 , 9 9 .

these figures could be as great as

Individual cases could be cited which would

fall considerably outside these limits which are based on
means of various sized samples.
The principle labor consuming silage handling oper­
ations are removal from vertical silos and feeding.

Only

a relatively small percentage of farms have silo unloaders
and mechanical feeders.

This Is partially due to normal

lag between development and adoption of equipment.

This is

the case particularly with respect to mechanical feeders.
They have been developed to an acceptable stage only re­
cently,

Silo unloaders on the other hand have been avail­

able for about ten years.
Farmers have not been satisfied with the performance
of silo unloaders.

There have been many mechanical problems

and many farmers who Installed the early models shortly
after World War II gave up and discarded them after a
season or two.

Current models are much improved, but farm­

ers are still skeptical.
A common comment of farmers in this study was that the

62

capacity of silo unloaders is too low.
n e e d for education in their use.

This indicates a

Silo unloaders are

essentially automatic and operate without the presence of
a n operator and capacity is therefore unimportant.

The

only practical requirement is that they be able to deliver
a day's feeding in 2lp~hours •

Prom the standpoint of engi­

neering design and materials handling principles,
unit capacities of

$0

current

to 250 lbs per minute are too great.

It is suggested that Instead of a three horsepower unit
operating 20 minutes a day, perhaps a silo unloader should
be designed for one-fourth horsepower operation for i|.-hours
per day.
It can be noted in the tables that the most efficient
handling methods, from the standpoint of man-hour require­
ments,

are associated with the larger scale operations.

This is as would be expected and is generally true of other
materials also.

Bedding Handling Operations
(Tables XI, XII, XIII and XIV)
The labor requirement for handling a ton of any form
of bedding is very high;
hours, respectively,
other forms.

2.69, 2.10, 3*08 and 2.31 man-

for baled,

chopped, long-loose and

Mechanization has not been applied to handling

bedding to a significant extent except in connection with
placement in storage.
Long-loose straw is used on only a small number of

63

TABLE XI
METHODS AND MAN HOURS PER TON FOR HANDLING
BALED BEDDING
O p e r a t i o n and Method

No.
of
Farms

Pet*
of
Farms

Unloading from Vehicle • • •
ItAanual .»**..**.*****
29
Semi-Mechanized*
185
M e c h a n i z e d * .........
10

• ** * *

Distribution in Storag e • « *
Eliminated..........
16
M a n u a l ........ ...... 190
S emi-Mec hani z e d . . .
18

♦ * *» «>

Removal from Storage
M a n u a l ...............

• »9

224.

Moving to Stable Area
• ••
E l i m i n at ed*.* * ...... 101
M a n u a l . . ............ 117
Semi-Mechanized* . * * *
A
2
Mechanized* « . * . . . . . *
Distribution in Stable
M a n u a l . ..........* • • .
Total*• * * . . .

12*9
82*6
4.5
7.2
34* &

8.0

•• »»•

100*0
• •**•
45.1

52*2
1.8
0.9

•*•

• » » <► ©

A

100*0

22

224

Ave.
Tons
Per Yr.
«e

M an Hrs* Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet*
Limit
0*28

20
35
28

0.26'' 1)*
0.23 y

♦© * e>
1*18
0*53
0.31

•©

0.25

31
33
33

0.28
0.24

•©
33

O .46
O .46

1.10

•»
32
34
20
30

0.30
0.00

0.00

•

33

1.40
1.40

3.35

33

2.69

•e#•

9

0.00

0.53
0.79
0.63

***.

0*00
0*56
0*47

♦»»•
©•

9

9

1.33

«»••

-^Statistically significant difference at 95 percent level*

64

TABLE XII
METHODS AND MAW HOURS PER TON FOR HANDLING
CHOPPED BEDDING
Operation and Method

No .
of
Farms

Unloading from Vehicle
Manual ....... .
Semi-Mec hanized......
M e c h a n i z e d ...........

Pet.
of
Farms

••
3
31
33

Ave.
Tons
Per Yr.

Man Hrs. Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Limit

4.5
46.3
49.2

*# «
13
36
58

0.26
0.75
0.28 n „
0.19

♦♦ ♦ •
••• ♦
1.13
0.57

** • #
64* 2
28.3
7.5

♦•
40
35
139

0.10
0.00

♦ •♦ •
0.00
1.10
0.57

Distribution in Storage e &
El i m inated ........... A3
M a n u a l ....... ........ 19
M e c h a n i z e d ...........
5

e

Removal from Storage

••
65
2

• ••*«>
97.0
3.0

Moving to Stable Area
* *•
Eliminated.
38
M a n u a l ......... ...... 26
1
Semi-Mechanized••••••
2
Mechanized. •»«..*•«*•

56.7
38.8
1.5
3.0

52
33
30
92

Distribution in Stable
M a n u a l ................

»•
67

*« • ••
100.0

46

0.92
0.92

• » & «►
2.32

Total........

67

* • «■ • •

46

2.10

♦ ♦ •«

Semi-Mechanized.». • • «

*

♦

♦•

46
40
e « ?

•«

0.31
0.21
0.61
0.62
O .46
0.21
0.00
0.49
0.33
0.37

•• • •
1.35
♦e♦ •
♦ ♦♦ •

0.00
1.20
«« ee

*># * *

^Statistically significant difference at 95 percent level.

65

TABLE: XIII
METHODS AND MAN HOURS PER TON FOR HANDLING
LOOSE BEDDING (LONG)
Operation and Method

No.
of
Farms

Unloading from Vehicle
M a n u a l ................
Semi-Mechanized......
M e c h a n i z e d ...........
Distribution in Storage
Eliminated.
M a n u a l . ...............
Au t o m a t i c .............
Removal from Storage
Manual
M o v i n g to Stable Area
E l i m inated...........
M a n u a l ................

1

•*
3
3
U
9 9

.. .. .

60.0
30.0

10.0
.....
30.0

30.0
40.0

.....

10

100.0

9 9

9 9 9 9 9

7
3

70.0
30.0

Ave.
Tons
Per Yr.
••
28
38
30
9 9

Man Hrs. Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Lirni t
0.37
0 .A1
0.33
0.25

0.12
0.00

9 9 9 9

••
31

0.91
0.91

1.90

•*
32
28

0.00

0.00

0.58

♦ •••
2.94

0.18

e*

e . <e . .

9 9

100.0

31

1 . 50
1.50

9 9 9 9 9

31

Total........ 10

•

9 9 9 9

0.00

0.38

10

9

•

•• •
0.95
• «•

0.00
0.00
0.00

27
28
29

to
o
•

Distribution in Stable

••
6
3

Pet.
of
Farms

9 9 9 9

• •• •

9 9 9 9

9

99

9

66

TABLE XIV

METHODS AND MAN HOURS PER TON FOR HANDLING OTHER BEDDING
(SAWDUST, SHAVINGS, CORN-COBS, ETCT)
Operation and Method

No *
of
Farms

Unloading from Vehicle
•9
M a n u a l ...............
5
Semi-Mechanized, . . . . . 3
Msc rj,_uTiiz ed
4

Pet.
of
Farms

Ave .
Tons
Per Yr.

9 9 9 9

9 9 9

41.7
33.3

65
45
87

9 9 9 9

9 9 9

25.0

Distribution in Storage » •
E l i m i n a t e d ...........
8
M a n u a l ...............
4-

66.7
33.3

Removal from Storage
•*
Elimin ated,..........
2
M a n u a l ...... •••..»»•• 10

9 9 9 9

9 9 9

16.7
83.3

140
53

Moving to Stable Area
E limin ated. ...........
M a n u a l ................
Semi-Mechanized......

9 9

9 9 9 9

5
A
3

41.7
33.3

Distribution in Stable
Manual. ........... .
M e c h a n i z e d . ..........

••
11
1

....
91.7
8.3

T o t a l . .......

12

•••*

25.0

89
24

9

9

9

16
51
174

Man Hrs,► Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Limit
0.53
0.58
0.69
0.34

9 9 9 9
9 9 9 9

0.08
0.00
0.25

0.00

0.45
0.00
0.54

0.00
1.15

0.50
0.00
0.63
1.17

69
50

0.75
0.81
0.15

67

2.31

9 9 9

• •• •
1.11

9 9 9 9

9 9 9 9

9 9 9 9

9 9 9 9

0.00
9 9 9 9
9 9 9 9

9 9

9 9

1.84
9 9 9 9

9 9 9 9

6?
farms*

It is shown by tonnages involved that these are

relatively small scale operations and it was observed that
nearly all of them were located in the less productive
areas of the state*

It also was noted that on four of these

farms stationary threshing machines were used and the straw
was delivered to and distributed in storage automatically.
Special forms of bedding other than straw were all
grouped together and summarized as such.

Each of the twelve

farms involved has some particular arrangement for securing
this material which is particularly desirable because of
location,

type of enterprise or other special feature.

The

value of this data for projection to general use is there­
fore doubtful•
The principle forms of bedding used are baled and
chopped straw.

While the tonnages Involved are relatively

low compared to hay and silage, the man-hours per ton are
enough greater to make bedding handling an operation of
similar scale.

Here again the time requirement is higher

for baled than chopped bedding but baling Is the most common
procedure.
With both baled and chopped bedding the Items of time
required for removal from storage and moving to stable area
are substantial.
* is largely manual.

The method of performing these operations
The difference between baled and chopped

bedding in this respect is little.
The greatest single item of labor is associated with
the operation of distribution of the bedding in the stable

68

area#

This

is a major item with 0*92 and l.i^O man-hours

per ton Tor chopped and baled, respectively.
it is ICO percent manual.
tive of method;

In both cases

The farm operator has no alterna­

only of form.

Baled bedding requires time

in breaking up the bales and shaking up the slices.

This

operation is obviously a logical subject of future m e c h a ­
nization. research.

There is also a need for improved

methods of handling bedding into and out of storage.

Manure Handling Operations
(Tables XV and XVI)
Manure handling on livestock farms

is the most highly

mechanized of all the materials considered in this study.
Wot only has it become mechanized more generally but also
the management practices and building facilities have been
modified to minimize labor in manure handling.
of the farms

On over half

there is no manual handling except a little in

scraping aprons, walks, raraps, corners, etc.

On a majority

of the remaining farms the manure is handled only once;
either manually or by semi-mechanized methods.
The practice of piling manure outside the stable area
during winter months has been abandoned on approximately
85 percent of all livestock farms studied.

This was practi­

cally standard procedure less than twenty years ago.

The

15 percent who have not eliminated this practice are mainly
In the northern area of the state.

These farmers pile

manure primarily because deep snow prevents immediate

69

hauling to the field*
W i t h the trend away from piling,

the separate oper­

ation of loading manure into a spreader has nearly been
eliminated.

Loading the spreader is accomplished directly

and simultaneously with removal from the stable area.
if this is done manually as it is on many farms,

Even

one h and ­

ling does the entire operation except spreading in the
field which is, of course, mechanized.
The extent of mechanization and elimination of manure
handling operations may be attributed to such things as:

1.

The extremely hard work involved in manually
removing packed manure from stable area and
piles.

2.

The development of effective tractor manure
loaders which are moderate in cost.

3.

The improvement of tractors and spreaders with
respect to use in winter conditions.

Lj_#

The increased use of the loose housing practice
for dairy herds.

5.

The development of effective mechanical cleaners
for stanchion type dairy barns.

The need for education concerning efficient practices
of manure handling is slight compared to other areas.
failure of some farmers

The

to develop efficient systems is not

based on a lack of understanding of what could be done.
W ith such a high percentage of farms with good systems
trend becomes self perpetuating,
engineering and perhaps
exist.

the

This is not to say that

specific education problems do not

There is always a need for education on care,

maintenance,

safety, etc.

There are engineering challenges

70

TABLE XV
METHODS AND MAN HOURS PER TON FOR HANDLING
MANURE FOR DAIRY AND BEEF CATTLE:
Operati on and Method

No*
of
Farms

Pet.
of

Farms

Ave.
Tons
Per Yr.

Man Hrs. Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Limit

Dairy
Removal from Stable
Manual
Semi-Mechanized....
Mechanized
A u t o m a t i c ..........
Transporting to Pile
E lim ina ted ..........
Manual
Semi-Mechanized....
A u t o m a t i c ..........
Loading into Spreader
M a n u a l ..........
Semi-Mecbanized ...
Me c h a n i z e d . ........
Auto m a t i c . .........
•

T o t a l . ....e

•
79
9
56
39

0.31
0.57
0.48w ~y*
0.14' 7
0.00 J

1.14
0.93
0.38

0.04
0.00

0.00

0.34\v
0.19'"

0.70
0.43

9 9 9 9

9 9 9

A3.2
A.9

487
455

21.3

541

• * *

9 9 9 9

9 9 9

154
17
3
4

34*2
9.3
4*3

2.2

565
299
517
392

* * •

• 9 9 9

9 9 9

15
4
14

3.2

322

2.2

434
392
572

0 .24'* L

535

0.41

• •

150
133

30.6

7.7
31.9

9 9 9 9

610

9 9 9 9

0.00
9 9 9 9

0.00
0.06

0.00
9 9 9 9

1.00
0.15

0.00

J

9 9 9 9

0.33

0.00
9 9 9 9

Beef
Removal from Stable
M a n u a l ......... .
Me cha n i z e d . .......
Transporting to Pile
Eliminated........
Semi-Mechanized.*«
Loading into -Spreader
Mec hani e o .........
Au tom ati c......... .
z

T o t a l ......

0 .1S
1.00

9 9 9 9

9 9 9

15

6.3
93.7

80
767

• 9 9

9 9 9 9

9 9 9

15

1

93.7
6.3

767
80

• 9 9

9 9 9 9

9 9 9

1

80
767

0.25

15

6.3
93.7

16

• •••

724-

0*22

• 9 9

1

0.13

0.02
0.00
0.25
0.02
0.00

9 9 9 9
9 9 9 9

0.32
9 9 9 9

0.00
9 9 9 9
9 9 9 9
9 9 9 9

0.00

-^Statistically significant difference at 95 percent level*

71

TABLE XVI
METHODS AND MAN HOURS PER TON FOR HANDLING
MANURE ON POULTRY AND GENERAL LIVESTOCK FARMS
No.
of
Farms

Operation and Method

Pet*
of
Farms

Ave.
Tons
Per Yr.

Man Hrs. Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Limit

Poultry
Removal from House
Manual
Me c h a n i z e d . ........
Transporting to Pile
Eliminated. .......
M a n u a l ..............
Loading into Spreader
M a n u a l ..........
Automatic
.

.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

T o t a l ......

• •

• • • •

• 0 0

10
4

71.^
23.6

127
188

0 •

» • « #

0 0 0

13
1

92.9
7.1

151
50

0 #

• » « »

0 0 0

1
13

7.1
92.9

50
151

14

0 0 ♦ ®

0.74

0 0 0 »

1.17
0.17*
0.01
0.00
0.10
0.01
0.20
0.00

0.00

0.76

• « • •

• # • «
• • • •

0.00
0 0 0 0
» f
l• •
• ♦ • •

General Livestock
Removal from Stable
M a n u a l ......
Semi-Mechanized....
Me c h a n i z e d .........
A uto mat ic .........
Transporting to Pile
Eliminated.

13
13
79

12.4
12.4
75.2

375
495
619

0.31
52s \
0.33H*
0.16' /
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.30
0.25
0.06
0 . 35x
0.12'*
0.00

To t a l ...... 105

• • 0 0

574

0.42

.
.
.

.
.
.

Semi-Mechanized....
Loading into Spreader
Manua.
M e c h a n i z e d .........
Au tom ati c........ .

• 0

45
4

46
10
♦ 0

87
12
6

» • • #

000

42 8

429
784
682

.

3.8
43*3
9.6
. ...

82.9
11.4
5.7

640
000

621
321
390
• » «

♦ 0

0 .

• 0 0 0

1.15
0 0 0 0

0.35
0.00
0 0 0 0

0.00
0.75

0.40
0 0 0 0

0.76
0.26
0.00

0 0 0 0

^Statistically significant difference at 95 percent level.

72
involved also.

Comments of farmers interviewed for this

study, point up such needs as:
1.

Improved chain design for more durable barn
cle ane rs .

2.

More versatile barn cleaner units which can
be used in oddly arranged barns.

3.

Mechanical cleaners for poultry houses.

Ear Corn Handling Operations
(Table XVII)
Handling ear corn is a relatively moderate operation
w i t h respect to labor requirements.

Unloading from the

transporting vehicle is largely mechanized.

Of the 273

farms Involving ear corn 218 of them have elevators for
taking it from the vehicle to the crib.

Most of them use

some manual effort to get it into the elevator.

The other

79 have mechanically unloading vehicles * unloading wagons
or dump boxes.

Only 55 operators actually shovel the corn

from the vehicle into the crib and they are smaller scale
operators handling less than average tonnage.
Distribution In the crib is not a separate operation
on most farms.

Most of this is done by timely moving and

appropriate positioning of the elevator.
classified in Table XVII as automatic.

This procedure is
While,

to be sure,

the maneuvering of the elevator would require some time and
effort,
bution.

it is not in this analysis associated with distri­
It is rather,

unloading•

included in the time indicated for

73

TABLE XVII
METHODS AND MAN HOURS PER TON FOR HANDLING
EAR CORN
Operation and Method

Wo.
of
Farms

Pet.
of
Farms

Ave.
Tons
Per Yr.

Unloading from Vehicle • * •
Manual..............
55
S emi-Me c hani zed.... 139
Mechanized.... .....
79

20.3
50.3
28.9

111

Distribution in Crib
• • •
Manual ........... •.
32
Semi-Mechanized. .... 17
Mechanized..... .
23
196
Automatic..... . .

•

•

11.6
6.2
10.5
71.7

Removal from Crib
Manual
Semi-Mechanized....
Mechanized..........

....
76.5
19.3
3.7

...
209
54

10

Total....... 273

• • »•

•

»

•

»

•

•

•

•••
53
72

•

•

72

68
107
81
•

•

*

73
93
147
80

Man Hrs,• Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Limit
0.24

0.36\ ■
-*\
0.24 s J*

....
0.75

0.52

0.17' S t , /

0.41

0.06
0.24
0.19
0.16
0.00

•• » »
0.5A
0.49
0.33
0.00

s,
|-it
J

0.49
0.54 n \*
0 .38 < 1st
0.18;-dr*'
0.79

•

•

•

*

1.12

0.83
0.38

•

*

•

•

-^-Statistically significant difference at 95 percent level.

7k
The m o s t labor consuming operation in connection with
ear corn handling is removing it from the crib.
farms

this is

still a manual operation*

On most

Those which are

classified as semi-mechanized are essentially all using one
of two procedures.

(1)

They discharge the corn out of an

opening in the side manually and by gravity into an elevator
whi ch discharges into a grinder or transporting vehicle.
(2)

The corn is discharged manually and by gravity onto

the ground or crib floor from which it is picked up with a
tractor loader.

These methods are much better than manual

handling but the flow rate is difficult to control for
grinding or other processing.
The few mechanized removal operations are mostly
mechanical drag systems used for bulk'and perhaps custom
shelling.

They are not adaptable to operations where ear

corn is not shelled out.

There is need,

therefore,

for

improvement in ear corn removal methods if ear corn is to
continue as a principal material on farms.

Before devoting

m u c h time and money to this problem, however, serious con­
sideration should be given to the future of ear corn in
view of the new but rapidly increasing practice of field
shelling.

If corn is to be shelled in the field in the

future the whole system of storage and handling must be
modified accordingly.
Many operators, especially dairy farmers and beef
feeders,

indicate that they are going to continue to want

to feed corn-cob meal rather than ground or whole shelled

75

corn.

If this

is to hold,

als handling problem.
to recall

then ear corn is still a ma teri­

It Is suggested that it might be well

the attitudes of farmers to other new items and

procedures shortly before

they were generally adopted.

The

author recalls comments of neighbor farmers in western
Michigan in 1939 and 19i|-0 to the effect that they would not
go to combining grain because of excessive field losses and
the straw handling problem.

By 19l}ii all custom threshing

units, which they depended upon and which depended upon them,
were out of business.

Perhaps

the war labor situation had

some effect but at most it was only an expediting influence.
There are m a n y who predict that corn pickers and cribs
are going the way of threshers and straw stacks.

Storage

costs and handling problems will support this trend which
has already started in the corn belt states.

Small drains and Concentrates
Handling Operations
(Table XVIII)
The term

*small g r a i n s 1 is used here to include shelled

corn and beans.

Methods used in handling small grains are

similar to those used for ear corn.

Most of the unloading

operations may be classified as semi-mechanized or mechanized.
Only a rather small percentage of farm operators perform this
operation manually.

Also most of the unloading operations

are managed so that the distribution in storage
plished simultaneously or automatically.

is accom­

76
The most substantial portion of the labor involved in
handling small grains is associated with removal from storage.
Most farmers remove the grain manually with a labor output
of nearly two-thirds of a man-hour per ton for this operation
alone*

This labor represents not only time but hard work. In

spite of the fact that

this material is granular and more

adaptable to gravity flow and mechanization these methods
have not b e e n generally adopted.

Perhaps the principle rea­

sons are:
1.

Rather low tonnages are lirvolved, especially In
the less mechanized system.

2m

Limitations of older existing storage structures
prevent the use of gravity flow.
It should be
added, however, that newer types of grain storage
structures do not generally permit this method
either.

3.

Machinery which is reasonably priced and effect­
ive Is not available for complete mechanization*

Factors two and three present problems needing engi­
neering attention.

These problems need to be considered in

connection with ear corn practices, grinding, blending and
feeding programs.
all system.

All need to be Integrated into an over­

Some work has been and is being done on this

(12).

Concentrate handling is also largely a manual operation
in all phases.

This

Is not as serious as with other materials

because of the smaller quantities

involved.

able equipment is not generally available.
blending of concentrates

Here again suit­
The metering and

into the prepared grain ration is

an important part of the system development suggested above.

77

TABLE XVIII
METHODS AND MAN HODBS PER TON FOR HANDLING
SMALL GRAINS AND C O NGENTHATES
Operation and Method

No.
of
Farms

Pet.
of
Farms

Ave.
Tons
Per Yr.

Man Hrs. Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Limit

Small Grains
Unloading from Vehicle
M a n u a l * .............
54
Semi-Meehanized* * * * 133
M e c h a n i z e d .....*****
93
Distribution in Storagei. . »
Manual
33
Semi-Mechanized.....
42
M e c h a n i z e d ..........
29
A uto mat ic.........
176
Removal from Storage
M a n u a l ..«».»«.»»»».. 170
Semi-Mechani z ed .....
72
echamzed
31
Auto m a t i c * . .........
12
• 0 9

.

*

0 0

i
i
i
L

•

*

To ta l.......

285

t • • «

• 0

18.9
46.7
34*4-

32
33
56

• V t •

0 0

13.3
14*7
10.2
61.8

36
33
37
44

»*

9

0

59.7
25.2
10.9
4.2
0

• • •

*•

34
43
51
99
47

0.27

0 41

....

\
0.27s *)
0.1 9j*/
0.08
0.25
0.21
0.13
0.00
.

\

0.50
0 *64
0.37U
0.26
/
0.00
0.8$

*

0.91
0.65
0.49
0 0 0 0

0.62
0.52
0.43
0.00
0 0 0 0

1.56
0.72
0.66
0.00

f • » »

Concentrates
Unloading from Vehicle
Manual*
93
Semi-Mechanized.*
5
Mechcuixzed.
8
Distribution in Storage...
46
Manual
Semi-Mechanized
4
61
Au t o m a t i c ............
Removal from Storage
7
Eliminated......... .
96
M a n u a l ........... .
Semi-Mechani zed.....
3
Au t o m a t i c ............
5
0 • 0

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.

»••

» * * . » » * * .

* * , . . * • . . . . . . .

. . . . .

♦ ♦ •

T o ta l....... 111

0

0 • 0

83.3
4*5
7.2
• * •

*

41.4
3.6
55.0
t t t •

0 0

13
17
24
0

0

11
11
16

•

0

6.3
86.5
2.7
4.5

6
11
45
45

• • # A

14

0.34
° * 35U
0. 20^
0.26
0.16
0.36
0.21
0.00
0.62
0.00
0. 7I\
0.16'*
0.00

• • 0

e

0.75
0.32
0.89
0 0 0 0

0.77

•
•

0

0

0

0.00
0 0 0

0.00
1.33
0 0 0 0

0.00
0.00

*Statistically significant difference at 95 percent level*

78

Ground Peed Handling Operations
(Tables XIX and XX)
It is significant that on a high percentage of farms
grinding and blending is not done by the farm operator.
Most of those classified as
of custom grinders,
units.

’e l im ina ted ’ employ the services

either at local elevators or by mobile

It was not practical to attempt to evaluate the time

involved in such operations f o r .comparison purposes in this
study.

These f arm ers ’ comments indicated that they spend

considerable

time loading up grain,

getting it ground.

taking it to town and

The only cost that is commonly considered

in connection with this procedure is the actual charge for
grinding.

The main advantage and principle reason for this

practice is the thorough and accurate blending of ingredients
including supplements purchased at the elevator.
Semi-mechanized grinding operations involve manual feed­
ing of the grinding unit while mechanized systems include
gravity or mechanical feeding to the grinder.

There were no

automatic grinding systems included in the farms studied
although such systems have been developed and are being used
to a limited extent.
It has been stated (25) that with an ideally arranged
farmstead there would be no problem of moving feed from the
storage area to the feeding area.

These areas would be

located either vertically or laterally adjacent to each
other*

The fact remains,

as is Illustrated by these data,

that farmsteads are not commonly so arranged,

and consider-

79

TABLE XIX
METHODS AND MAN HOURS PER TON FOR HANDLING
GROUND FEED FOR DAIRY AND BEEF CATTLE
Operation and Method

No .
of
F arras

Pet.
of
Farms

Ave.
Tons
Per Yr.

Man Hrs. Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Limit

Dairy
Grinding and Blending
...
Eliminated ........ .
88
Serni-Mechanized...... 65
M e c h a n i z e d ........... 12
Moving to Feeding Area. ...
M a n u a l ............ ....105
Semi-Mechanized...... 19
iit!6C Lc-'Xliz eo . • e-e .
2
2
A u t o m a t i c 19
Feeding
.
m a n u a l .« a **« « .« « « #■..»15-^
M e c h a n i z e d ...........
7
Autome:txc............
5

» • » ••
53.3
39.4
7.3
# « »«♦
63.7
11.5
13.3
11.5
92.8
4*2
3*0

To tal ........16 5

♦•*
59
69
85
# «►«■
53
116
71
71
* «■*
57
100
234

0.36
0.00
0.73
0.65
0.49
0 .62 ■> '\
)&
0.39 ' .
0.34
'
0.00
1.25
1 *30 W
0.34 '
0.00

•♦••
0.00
1.55
1.59
• • *9
1*43
0.66
1.06
0.00
•»•> <$
3.88
0.81
0.00

65

2.10

e* «-t

»»0
170
241
130

• » * *»
0.00

184

0. AO'
0.00
0.97
0.29
0.49
0.85
0.72
0.14
0.00
0.60
0.60

184

1.49

^ * e e*

Beef
...
Grinding and Blending
mlimmateo
5
4
Semi-Mechanized,....
Mechani zed ..........
3
Moving to Feeding Area * * «■
4
>Seml ™M.ec ha? j.z ec* .« « *
3
2
Mec hana z eo
A u t o ma tic ...........
3
•
»
f
Feeding
12
Mctziiiax
To tal ... « *«.

12

e* * #*
41*7
33.3
25*0
.....

33.3
25.0
16.7
25.0
100.0

134
88
330
273

• * I?J
• ee
>«
• • ee
«C
•C t •
0.00
••• r

1.86

-^Statistically significant difference at 95 percent level*

BO

TAELE XX
METHODS AND MAH HOURS PER TON FOR HANDLING
GROUND FEED ON POULTRY AND GENERAL LIVESTOCK FARMS
No.
of
Farias

Operation and Method

Pet*
of
Farms

Ave*
Tons
Per Yr*

Man Hrs. Per Ton
Ave.
95 Pet.
Limit

Poultry
Grinding and blending
•
E l imi nat ed..........
9
Semi-Mecban!zed*....
3
M e c h a n i z e d ....... .
1
Moving to Feeding Area
M a n u a l .............. 10
Semi-Mechanized* * * * * 2
A u t o m a t i c ............
1
Feeding
• ♦
8
M e c h a n i z e d . »******.»
1
Automatic ***.*.*•*•*
4
•

0 0

.

lotal.»«»**• 13

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

61*5
7.7
30.3

86
110
239

0.30
0.00
1.00
0.92
0.91
0.96
1.08
0.00
1.12
1.79
0.25
0.00

0 0 0 0

135

2.33

0 0 0 0

69.2
23.1
7.7
•
76.9
*

•

•

1 7
0

0 0 0

136
54
372
0 0 0

125
192
125

0 0 0 0

0.00
• •

•

0

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

2.4-2
0 0 0 0

0.00
0 0 0 0

4-33
0 0 0 0

0.00

0 0 0 0

General Livestock
Grinding and Blending
E l im ina ted ..........
Serai “Mec hani zed....
M e c h a n i z e d ..........
M o v i n g to Feeding Area
M a n u a l ...............
Semi-Mechanized.... *
ivle c nan j,zed *
Au t o m a t i c . ..........
Feeding
Manual. ............ .
Me c h a n i z e d . «••».*...
Automatic
.

.

»

«

«

.

.

.

*

»

•

••
47
47
4
*
63
12
14
9
•

♦

0

92
1
5

T o t a l ...... . 93

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

43.0
48.0
4.0

70
105
215

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

64.3
12.3
14.3
9.1

79
32
145
117

9 0 0 0

0 0 0

93.9
1.0
5.1

39
73
169

0 0 0 9

94

0.32
0.00
° * H )' *
0.26
0.4 3
0«6° \ \
0.40 '*]■*
0*33
J
0.00
1 <=.04
1.11
0.20
0.00
1.84

« . . .

0.00
1.53
0.63
0 0 0 0

1.60
0.75
1.04
0.00
0 0 0 0

2.38
0 0 0 9

0.00

0 0 0 0

^Statistically significant difference at 95 percent level*

81
able time and. effort is expended in transporting between
these a r e a s .

A practical solution to this problem,

and one

whi ch can be easily intergrated with an automatic grinding
and automatic feeding system,
conveyor

(25 and 26).

is the low pressure pneumatic

This, however,

is only a substitute

for well arranged facilities.
W i t h all types of livestock enterprises the labor out­
put for feeding grain is extremely high.

This is especially

true for dairy cattle in stanchion barns where grain feeding
is entirely a manual operation.

There is no satisfactory

alternative now available for stanchion barn enterprises.
Loose housing relieves this situation as well as many other
materials handling problems.
There are available means of feeding other types of
livestock mechanically and even automatically.
may be used for beef cattle, hogs or poultry.

Self-feeding
Very

satis­

factory mechanical feeders are available for beef cattle,
poultry or even for dairy cattle if loose housing is prac­
ticed.

A substantial percentage of poultry farms studied

used automatic mechanical feeders.
Reference has been made to a need for a complete system
for handling and processing grains and concentrates.
need is substantiated by these data.

This

Such a system would

necessarily be made up of complementary individual units
designed for various specific operations.

According to the

principles of w o rk simplification the system should provide
for continuous flow through the various units in series.

82

The specific operations involved could include removal from
storage, metering,

blending, grinding, moving to feeding

area and feeding.

Such an intergrated system for handling

grains and concentrates

1from storage bin to feed bunk*

would span the major labor consuming operations currently
existing*

The University of Illinois has for several years

been working toward this type of system (12, 13 , 22 and 28).
As a result of this work,

systems and component units are

commercially available and being used on about 100 Illinois
farms*

Available systems for including ear corn are rather

expens ive•
Agricultural Experiment Stations in Georgia, Kansas,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have also done work on feed
grinding systems.

They have all worked with batch process

units rather than continuous flow and to date this work has
not resulted in units available to the farmer.

Summary of Labor Requirements
for Materials Handling
(Tables
XXI and XXII)
Many of the most labor consuming operations discussed
previously In connection with the more detailed data,
more obvious

in tables XXI and XXII.

are

Some of the most promi

nent time consuming operations from Table XXI in order of
magnitude per ton are:
1.

Distribution of bedding in the stable area,
especially baled bedding.

83

TABLE XXI
SUMMARY OF MAN HOURS PER TON FOR HANDLING
FEEDS ON 320 LIVESTOCK FARMS
Material and
Farm Type
Hay:
Baled
Chopped
Loose
Silage:
Vert. Silo
floriz. Silo
Bedding:
Baled
Cbopped
Loose
Other
Manure:
Dairy
Beef
Poultry
General
Small Grain
Concentrate
Ear Corn
Ground Feed:
Dairy
Beef
Poultry
General

Man Hours Per Ton
Unloading Distributing Removal Moving Feeding
M.-5H f r
or Dist.
0.23

0.17

0.20

0.25
0.08

0.50

0.13

0.78

0.56

0.71

0.19

0.13
0.14

0.04
0.10

0.51
0.16

0.25
0.09

0.54

0.28

0.25

0.46
0.61

0.30
0.21

1.40

0.91
0 . 45

0.18

0.92
1.50

0.50

0.75

♦

♦

*

»

•

•

*

•

•

•

•

#

*

*

»

•

»

•

•

•

•

*

»

•

*

•

•

•

•

•

»

*

•

0.26
0.37
0.53

0.10
0 .12
0.08

0.41

0.51
O .46
0.53

0.11

0.31
0.18
0.74
0.31

0.02
0.01
0.05

0.06
0.02
0.01
0.06

0.27
0.34

0.08
0.16
0.06

0.50
0.62
0.49

«

#

*

»

•

*

•

•

•

•

•

*

•

»

•

♦

•

*

♦

•

*

»

0.36
0.40
0.30
0.32

0.49
0.49
0.91
0.48

0.24

0.04

.

.

.

.

•

#

•

•

.

.

.

.

•

•

•

•

.

.

.

.

•

»

•

•

.

.

.

.

•

•

•

*

^Removal from stable for manure.
*'-■*Grinding and blending for ground feed.

f

1.25
0.60
1.12

1.04

34

TABLE XXII
SUiidMARY OF TOTAL LABOR USED IN HANDLING
VARIOUS MATERIALS ON FARMS STUDIED
Material and
Faria Type
Hay:
Baled
Chopped
Loose
Silage:
Vert. Silo
Horizfe Silo
Beddinge
Baled
Chopped
Loose
Other
Manure:
Dairy
Beef
Poultry
General
Small Grain
Concentrates
Ear Corn
Ground Feed;
Dairy
Beef
Poultry
General

Ho.
of
Farms

Man Hours
Per Ton

Average
Tonnage

1.57
1.37
2.77

120
122

220

1.47

24

0.60

201
302

209
87
13,

58

Ave. Man Hrs.
Per Faria
Per Year
188
167
167

296
181

224

2.69

33

67

2.10

46

10
12

3.08
2.31

31
67

183
16
U
105

0.41
0.22
0.76
0.42

535
724
144
574

285

273

0.8 5
1 «jl2
0.79

47
14
80

16
63

165

2.10

13
98

1.49
2.33
1.84

65
184
135
94

136
274
314
173

111

12

89
97
96
155
219

160
109

2.4,1
26

85

2m

Feeding ground feed;
in stanchion barns*

especially to dairy cows

3*

Moving ground feed from storage area to feeding
area*

l±.

Removal

of hay from storage.

5-

Removal

of silage from vertical silos.

6.

Removal of all types and forms of
s torage.

7.

Feeding hay and silage.

grain from

There currently exists no generally satisfactory sub­
stitute for manual effort in items 1, 2,

and 6.

Mechanical

equipment and labor saving procedures have, however, been de­
veloped for items 3, 5 and 7.

This should not imply that

further research and development is not needed in these areas.
The more efficient methods, however, have not been generally
adopted.

Perhaps

this,

in turn,

indicates

the need for

improvement or modification.
One of the most conspicuous

items in Table XXII is the

annual time associated with ground feed.

It should be point­

ed out again that these data do not include the grinding and
blending operation on the large portion of farms where this
is done in town or by mobile custom grinders.

The inte­

grated automatic system discussed earlier, would eliminate
nearly all of the man-hours per year associated with small
grain,

concentrate, ear corn and ground feed.

It would also

eliminate the custom grinding cost and inconvenience.
By virtue of large tonnages, manure handling is still a
major activity in terms of man-hours per year.

It will be

86

recalled that time of hauling to and spreading in the field
is not included*

As has been pointed out, however, manure

handled is generally performed quite efficiently through
elimination and mechanization of operations*
In spite of the manual effort required for distributing
bedding,

the annual requirement is not major because of r el a­

tively small quantities handled.

Costs and Other Factors Involved in Owning
and Operating Feed Handling Equipment
(Tables XXIII and XXIV)
Tractor and engine operated power equipment is more
commonly used than electrically operated units.
blowers,

Elevators,

unloading wagons, manure loaders and feed grinders

are examples of common engine powered equipment.

Some items

such as silo unloaders, barn cleaners and mechanical feeders
are entirely electrically operated.

In all cases only the

units which are electrically operated are used in determin­
ing the average wattage.
In considering the first costs of the various items of
equipment,

it is significant to remember that the data rep­

resent the purchase prices at the particular times when the
purchases were made.

With items which are rather uniform In

style, size and capacity there were surprisingly small vari­
ations in purchase prices.

With items such as elevators,

bln unloaders and feed grinders, however,

there were con­

siderable ranges of first cost.
The

'hoars used per year' and

'cost per hour used'

87

IABLE XXIII
WAl’TAGS, AGE, EXPECTED LIFE AND EXTENT OF USE
OF FEED HANDLING EQUIPMENT

Item

No.
of
Farms

No.
Age
Ave.
E l e c . Wattage (Yrs.)
Drive

To tal
Expected
Life

Auger Elevators
Ch ain or Belt Elevators
Blowers
Grain Bin llnloaders
Unloading Wagons

71
2 58
173
12
207

70
196
7
5
99

513
1130
3800
960
487

3*7
4-2
5-1
2.5
5*0

13.3

Bar n Cleaners
Silo Unloaders
Mechanical Feeders
Gr a i n Dispensers
Tractor Manure Loaders

69
25
24
10
186

69
25
23
000
000

2915

3.6
• • *
2.6
2.8
5.1

13.5

Silage Dist. (in silo)
Self-feeders
Feed Carts
Monorail Carriers
Hay Hoists

7
76
103
32
17

1
000
000
1
5

2.1
4*1
7.5
13.5
1<4e>4

13.6
12.7
17.1
20.7
22.2

96
14
2
17
18

7
000
2
3
15

8.0
5.9
1.5
6.7
6.7

15.8
12.3
15.0
15.5
16.8

Hammer Mills
Bur r Mills
Other type Mills
C o r n Shelters
Feed Mixers

•

•

•

#

1650
•

•

«- •

•

•

*

*

100
*

♦

*

®

•

*

*

*

800
2100
3630
•

•

ft •

5950
4170
2250

14.2
13.3
18.4
13.8

•

•

»

•

13.3
18.5
13.7

88

TABLE XXIV
COSTS OF OWNING AND OPERATING
FEED HANDLING EQUIPMENT

Item

Hrs.
Ave, Over-Head
Ave. Annual
No *
Annual Per Hr.
of
Used
First Repair
Used
Units
Cost Cost Per Yr.
31
81
74
35
77

$14.10
49.65
63.30
9.30
56.30

$0.46
0.61
0.86
0.27
0.73

116
170

$178.10

$1.54

411

128.80
5.60
45.60

0.31
0.40
0.40
$0.16

$0.49
0.67
1.26
1.27
0,44

$1390

o

$115 $ 2.65
4-01 11,45
516 11.70
0.70
109
388 18.50
o

Auger Elevators
76
Chain or Belt Elevator s294
Blowers
175
Gra in Bin Unloaders
17
Unloading Wagons
395
69
33
24
36
189

Silage Dist, (in silo)
Self Feeders
Feed Carts
Monorail Carriers
Hay Hoists

7
161
149
32
17

$103 $ 3.60
2.00
75
1.30
50
217
0.95
7125
134

122
154
41

$13.80
9.80
5.50
16.85
16.85

96
14
2
17
18

$222 $13.00
385 19.40
20.30
675
12.90
439
394 10.55

67
90
65
41
100

$32.50
60.30
82.30
52.20
43.85

Hammer Mills
Eurr Mills
Other Type Mills
C orn Shelters
Feed Mixers

•

Bar n Cleaners
Silo Unloaders
Mechanical Feeders
Grain Dispensers
Manure Loaders

• * * •

♦ • ♦ 9 •

992
56
352

29.40
1.15
11.20

80
115
85
• •

€*

* * * * * *

• * * t

• • * *

0.05
0.11

0.41

■^Includes depreciation, repairs and 5 percent simple interest.

39

columns in Table XXTV are of particular interest and sig­
nificance*

As an example,

consider the highest cost per

hour used which is associated with the barn cleaner.

In a

typical installation fifteen minutes of operation could
easily replace an hour of hard disagreeable manual work.
The overhead cost of $1*514- for a barn cleaner plus about
$.09 for operating power would make a m a n ’s manual effort
worth about $.1|1 an hour.

It is impossible to evaluate

units such as feed grinders and corn shellers entirely in
terms of cost of labor saved because they modify the materi­
al and presumably increase its worth for the use intended.
The cost of strictly materials handling units can in
general be easily justified on the basis of labor saved if
the labor can be disposed of or profitably applied elsewhere.
This

is related to a discussion of the uses made of time

saved included later in this thesis.

Mechanization and Production Efficiency
(Figure 8)
The distribution of relative labor requirements as
plotted against investment in materials handling equipment
is illustrated by Figure 8.

Also shown is the regression

line of the ordinate scale on the mantissa scale.
Investment here includes the non-depreciated first
cost of items of equipment included in the study as listed
previously.

Relative labor requirement was calculated for

each farm as follows:

90

R.L.R. = Mf-n months per year used
x 100
Livestock equivalent man months
where man months per year used includes operator, family and
hired labor.

Livestock equivalent man months is the theo­

retical m a n month requirement based upon the amount of live­
stock involved.

Various types of livestock were converted

to a common base with appropriate factors,

See APPENDIX IT.

The actual R.L,R, value for a given farm has little signifi­
cance except for comparison and correlation purposes.

It is

an index of labor efficiency.
Mathematical analysis. -

The calculation of the re­

gression and correlation coefficients will be described for
clarification of their significance.

The pertinent data

involved a r e t
N (sample size)

=

311

(investment grand total)

ZXs

£x,Z =

=

£631r?00

1 ,921 ,1*32 ,1*00

Y = Z X l = 352.030
N
21Y/ (R.L.R.)
= 3b,709 percent
ZlV2
Y"

=

6,309,01*5

=

118 percent

Y/ “

JEX,’Y/

=

6 7 , 5 8 7 , M j-2

The regression coefficient of Y on X is then

v

_

S

x

/

IX,2

-

Y y

-

gX/S Y / A '
{SIX/ )2
N

6 7 ,5 6 7 ,1 0 *2
1 ,9 2 1 ,1 * 3 2 ,t '0 0 =

-0,0107

( 6 3 1 ,7 0 0 ) ( 3 6 , 7 0 9 ) / 3 H
(6-31, 7 0 0 )^ 7 311

(slope of line shown)

91
The correlation coefficient, r, was obtained as f oll ows :
r = (bb *)
where b = regression coefficient of Y on X
and b*

= regression coefficient of X on Y

*>' =* S X ; Y; - T X ; Z Y / / a/
Y / 2 _ ( S y /)2/ k
=

-3.50

then,
b
r

=

(3.50 x .0107)

= 0.153

The correlation coefficient for 300 degrees of freedom
and at a 99 percent confidence level is O.lij.8 (37).

The

correlation coefficient of 0.193 with 310 degrees of freedom
is highly significant.
Interpretation of Figure 8 . -

The curve shown repre­

sents the expected average effect of investment in materials
handling equipment on the relative labor requirement of a
livestock farm.
R.L.R.

=

The equation of the curve shown is
li|l - 0.0107 I

where I is investment.
Whether or not this should be a first order curve may
be questioned.

The curve for any given farm would not form

a line of uniform slope as more equipment is added.
it would be made up of straight segments,

Rather

the slopes of

whi ch would depend upon the cost of the particular item and
the labor saved by it.

However,

to attempt to form a

generally applicable curve of other than first degree would
be to assume an order of purchase of the various items.

It

92

190

180

++♦ +-

Figure S * Di s tr Lbut iou
of labor requirements and
investment in equipment.

.•

160

A es.n

Regression Coef*
Correlation Coef

RELATIVE

010 7
-.19

120

••
100

.•

LABOR

REQUIREMENT

(PERCENT)

140

•*
80

60

20
0
v lA T E R I A L t -

/
o

2000
RAjM J'O llvG

E Q U IP M E N T

■\ ■
.

1

'yJ

IN V E S T M E N T

f BO L i ..A R M

93

is suggested that the data on units owned do not support
such an assumption*

There is, however, a point beyond which

the curve shown cannot be projected*

It is inconceivable

that even an unlimited investment in equipment could com­
pletely eliminate human labor from farming*
On the other hand it is reasonable to assume that within
the investment limits represented by Figure 8, each $31,000
logically Invested in equipment could be expected to reduce
the R*L*R. by 10*7 percent on the average.
The dispersion of points would indicate that other
factors also greatly influence the labor required on livestock
farms.

These factors would include such things as building

arrangement, mechanical aptitude of operator, physical stature,
physical condition and management ability of the operator and
other workers.

It would,

therefore,

be hazardous to predict,

on the basis of this curve, what exact effect any individual
farmer might obtain from the purchase of a particular unit.
The primary significance of this curve Is the demon­
stration of the high degree of correlation between mechani­
zation of materials handling and over-all labor efficiency*

Substitution of Equipment for Hired Labor
(Tables XXV and XXVI and Figures 9 and 10)
With a fixed size enterprise, mechanization can relieve
the labor requirement effectively only If the labor released
is hired labor.

On li|6 of the 320 farms studied there was

no hired labor involved.

On these farms the justification

TABLE XXV
MAN MONTHS OF LABOR PER YEAR
ON 320 LIVESTOCK FARMS
(AVERAGE = 21.2)
Man Months
Interval
0
4
7
10
13 —
16
19
22
25 =*
28
31 - »
34 —
37
40 —
43 —
46 —
over

3
6

—
Q

/

12
15
18
21

—

24
27
30
33
36

39
42
45
48

43

Total

No*
Farms
0
1
1

31
70
56
31
45

24

Pet.
Farms
0*0
0.3
0.3
9.7
21.7
17.6
9.7

14.1

26
7
15
3
3
2
2
3

7.5
8.1
2.2
4.7
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.9

320

100.0

95

70

60

50

Of

FARMS

O0

NUMBER

30

20

10

1

0
0

6

■7/-

12
JiA 0

PI l , u!■s

q

- 1 0 '.'I T r i o

R OR

V 3
■H-a

.
60

1 6 AR

^ Dlstr.' i.o1]t i.ori oT to U.l looor j so0 oo 3*c
farvis stool ole

96

96

TABLE yLXVI
MAW iiUNTEL OF HIP ED LABOR PER Y e;a r
ON 320 LIVESTOCK FARMS
(AVERAGE = 3-5)
ilan months
Interval

No.
Farms

1-3

91
32
7
25
5
4
1
5
0
1
1

4 - 6
7 - 9
10 - 12

13 - 15

16 - la
19
22
25
2a

31 34 37 40 over
Total

21

24
27
30
33
36
39
42

42

1
0
0

1
-?ry/■

Pet.
Farms
28.4
10.0
2.2
7.3

1.6
1.3
0.3

1.6
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0,3
54*4

97

AA)
fWv
60

50
No hired labor on I 46 farms

30

NUMBER

OF

FARMS

AO

20

0

ol

6

TUI

12

24

3 a’

36

42

MAN 70NT.H6 2 ml YimR
Figure 10, Distribution of hired 1 -bor used on
320 farm s s vu2 1 e1

04

60

98

of increased mechanization must be based upon:
1.

Expanded scale of operation.

2.

More intensive production within the existing
li m i t s .

3.

Or relief from drudgery or disagreeable work*

In analyzing the labor used on the farms studied it
appears that the most fertile area for application of m a ­
chinery for increasing efficiency is on those farms using
hired labor.

Theoretically, hired labor can be reduced as

it is released by mechanization.

Practically, however,

this

may not be the case if all hired labor is represented by
full-time workers.

Unless a full-time worker can be com­

pletely released in such operations, mechanization may again
need to be justified on the basis of a change in scale or
intensity.

Part-time help is not a desirable alternative In

many areas*
It appears that the farms which should most logically
consider increased mechanization are those which employ parttime seasonal help;

more specifically those farms employing

from one to three man months of labor over even full-time
increments.

Table XXVI shows 28.1* percent of all farms

studied employ from one to three man months of help and 1.6
percent hire thirteen to fifteen man months.

These represent

a total of 30 percent of the farms which might well consider
selective mechanization of the seasonal operations now r e ­
quiring extra help.

In many cases this would involve hand­

ling in connection with harvesting and placement in storage.

99

Us© of Time Saved by Materials
Handling Equipment
The operator of each farm studied was asked what was
done with the time, if any, which was saved by use of feed
handling equipment.

For consistency and to facilitate sum­

marizing their responses,
were suggested.

six categories of possible uses

The categories and responses are tabulated

and broken down by tenant and ovmer operators in Table XXVII.

TABUS XXVII
USE

O F TIME SAVED BY FEED
HANDLING EQUIPMENT

Tenants
No. Pet.

Owner
Operators
No. Pet.

Expanded Production

19

63

188

65

207

65 /

Reduction of Labor Supply

17

57

159

55

176

55 ^

More Leisure Time

5

17

65

22

70

22 t

Gare and Maint. of Mach.

9

30

75

26

8U

26 1

12

50

118

51

130

i+1 >

6

20

87

30

93

29

6b

237

239

780

238

Use of Time Saved

More Effective Farming
Community Activities
Total

692

Total
No. Pet.

The largest response was in the category indicating
expanded production.

This is consistent with the general

trend toward larger operating units cited before.

These

combined with those indicating reduction of labor supply
make up over half of all responses.

It will be noted that

100

more

than one category was checked for most farms.
It Is interesting to note that the lowest response is

associated w ith more leisure time.

SUMMARY

The 320 farms

studied are considered to represent an

unbiased sample of livestock farms using some degree of
mechanization of materials handling.

Farms were included

from Il6 of the 83 counties in Michigan and all principal
livestock areas were represented.

Because of the size and

nature of the group of farms studied the use of statistical
procedures in the analysis of the data was necessary and
appropriate.
The size of the farms studied is somewhat larger than
the average acreage of all livestock farms in Michigan.
Tenant operated farms are slightly larger than owner oper­
ated farms.

Both of these factors may be explained by

effects of high investments in machinery,

time of entry

into the farming business and the economics of supporting
both an owner and a tenant.
It was observed that over two-thirds of the farm oper­
ators are between 30 and 5>0 years of age.
were less than 30 years old,

Only two percent

indicating again the effect of

high initial investments required for farming.

Investments

in materials handling equipment are lower on farms with
operators over 50 years old.

This is consistent with the

additional observation that scale of operation decreased
with age of operators.

102

In analyzing various methods of performing materials
handling operations,

there were many cases where a certain

degree of mechanization showed no significant saving in
time over lesser degrees of mechanization.

It must be

remembered that the failure of a difference to demonstrate
significance does not imply that the apparent differences
are not actual.

In addition to differences in time required

to perform an operation by different methods,

the differ­

ences in effort required and the nature of the operator's
activity must be considered.

Mechanization makes most jobs

easier and more agreeable besides saving time.
mechanization often makes
inability
a

Indeed,

the difference between physical

and ability of a particular individual to perform

certain operation. This,

in turn,

affects the use of

family labor as related to hired labor and/or scale of
operations.
Some of the more Important specific findings of
analyses of specific operations are as follows:
1.

Baling of hay and bedding is considerably more
common than chopping even though handling

labor

Is greater and chopping equipment Is often already
owned for making silage.
2.

The materials which consume the most handling time
per ton in order of magnitude are:
a)

Ground feed

b)

Bedding

c)

Hay

103

3.

The most highly mechanized handling is associated
wi t h :
a)

Manure

b)

Silage

c)

Small grains

General

types of operations requiring greatest

handling time are:
a)

Feeding or distributing

b)

Removal from storage

c)
5>.

Moving from storage to area of use

Consideration of average annual tonnages involved
along wit h man-hours per ton reveals that the m a ­
terials requiring the most total annual time in
order of magnitude are:

6,

a)

Ground feed

b)

Silage

c)

Manure

d)

Hay

Specific materials handling operations which are
conspicuous for the time required by them and for
their need of engineering attention are:
a)

Distribution of bedding in the area of use.

b)

Feeding ground feed;

especially to dairy

ca ttle.
c)

Moving ground feed from storage
area.

d)

Removal of hay from storage.

to feeding

e)

Removal of silage from vertical silos.

f)

Removal of ear corn and small grains from
storage.

g)

Feeding hay and silage.

Manure handling is by far the best developed and
mechanized from the standpoint of complete systems
which are designed to be compatible with pr o­
duction practices.
Wi t h most feeds certain handling operations are
well mechanized and efficient, but, little con­
sideration has been given to their effect on the
other handling operations.
There is evidence of a need for system develop­
ment which would make the methods of performing
various operations not only compatible and com­
plementary but coordinated and integrated for
continuous flow and simultaneous performance.
Farm operators are interested in high power and.
high capacity.

This is inconsistent with certain

basic principles of work simplification and au­
tomation.
On equipment where

it is possible, farmers use

tractors and engines more commonly than electric
motors .■
Of all equipment studied,

the barn cleaner has

the highest combined operating and over-head cost
per hour used.

The cost of using this unit,

105

however, makes a m a n 1s time worth only I4.I cents
per hour for manual barn cleaning.

Similar data

were obtained for other equipment.
13.

A highly significant correlation coefficient was
demonstrated between amount of materials handling
mechanization and ,over-all farm production ef­
ficiency.

ll_.

As would be expected,

there was evidence that

other factors besides degree of mechanization
also greatly influence production efficiency;
such things

as mechanical aptitude, physical

stature, physical condition and managerial ability
of the operator and other workers.
15.

Thirty percent of all

farms employ between one and

three months of part-time help per year.

These

farms, especially, might well consider increased
mechanization for elimination of this need for
seasonal help.
16.

Sixty-five percent of the farm operators indicated
that they had expanded production as a result of
time saved by materials handling equipment.
Fifty-five percent had reduced their labor supply.
Only twenty-two percent indicated that they had
more leisure time.

LIST OP REFERENCES

1.

ALTMAN, L. B. Jr.,
K. PHILSON and E. J. BU RE S H .
Demand and diversity of use of electricity on
sixteen farms in the eastern livestock area of Iowa.
Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 387,
690-7^5 3 1952.

2.

ASHBY, Wallace.
Whats happening in farm buildings.
Agricultural Engineering.
26: 101-103, 19U5*

3.

BENEKE, R. R. and Roger WOODWORTH.
Electricity in
the farm business.
Iowa Farm Science.
_7r 8-11, 1952.
BIERLY, I. R. and P. R. HOFF.
Work simplification a joint problem for management, engineering and com­
modity specialists.
Journal of Farm Economics.
29: 219-22i|, 191-1-7.

5.

B0CKH0UT, B. R. Reducing chore labor on dairy farms.
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Quarterly
Bulletin.
30: 15-20, 19U-7-

6•

CARTER, R. li. R educing the need for labor by mechani­
zation and better methods.
United States Department
of Agriculture Bulletin 1814., 9pp., 19U7 *

7.

DAVIS, J. F.
Electricity on farms in New York and New
England.
United States Department of Agriculture
Bulletin 12Li, U-2pp •, 195U-*

8

and S * D. STANIF0RTH. Electricity on farm 3
in the eastern dairy area of Wisconsin.
United States
Department of Agriculture Bulletin llj.3, 31pp., 1955.

*

9.

10

.

11 .

DeFOREST, S. S.
Materials handling - newest farm
science.
Merideth Publishing Co., DesMoines, Iowa.
l6pp., 1955.
DIXON, W. J. and F. J. MASSEY, Jr.
Introduction tG
Statistical A n al ysi s. McOraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
370pp., 1951.
FEDERER, W. T.
Experimental Design.
ing Co., New Yorku
5hii'pp., 1956 .

MacMillan Publish­

107

12*

13-

FORTH, M. VJ., R, M* MOWHRY and L. S. F O O T E . Automatic
feed grinding and handling*
Agricultural Engineering*
32: 601-605, 1951.
________ and E* W. LEKMANU.
Feed grinding with
electric motors.
Agricultural Engineering.
35:
65-8-650, 1955-.
J
—

15-

GAINES, J. P.
and J, F. DAVIS.
Electricity on farms
in the clay hills area of Mississippi.
Mississippi
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 593.
52op,,
1952.

15.

GALLAGHER, H. J.
Engineering farm chore jobs.
Agricultural Engineering.
2J t 77-76, 1956.

16.

GREEN, J. W«
House building by farm owners.
North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 391.
115pp., 1955*

17.

GUNLGGSON, G. B.
Some concepts of farming efficiency.
Agricultural Engineering. 25: 369-371* 195-5*

16.

HANNA, G. B.
Results of two surveys of electrically
operated equipment.
Michigan Agricultural Experiment
Station.
Unpublished report.
10pp., 1951.

19.

HAWTHORN, F.
Handling chopped forages on the farm.
Agricultural Engineering.
30: 127> 1959.

20.

HEADY, E.0.
Economics of Agricultural Production
and Resource U s e . Prentice-Hall Inc., New York.
85 0 pp . , 1952T ~~

21.

HENDERSON, S. M.
and R. L. PERRY".
Agricultural Process
Engineering,
John Wiley and Sons, New Eork., 562 pp.,
1^557"

22.

HIKCHCLIFF, K. H., L. B. CULVER,
L. R. KYLE and
H, R. KEMMERER,
Planning your farmstead.
Illinois
Agricultural Extension Service Circular 732.
16pp.,
1955 •

23.

HUSD0N, W. G.
Evaluating materials handling layouts.
Chemical Engineering.
110-112, 1957*

25.

IMMER,
1953.

25.

KLEIS, R. W.
Moving feed from storage to feeding
point.
Agricultural Engineering.
35: o51-657* 1955.

J. R.

Materials Handling, McGraw-Hill Inc.,

103

KLEIS, R. W.
Operating characteristics of pneumatic
grain conveyors.
Illinois Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin 59k*
12pp., 1935.

27.

.. Electrical equipment on Illinois farms.
Illinois Farm Electrification Council Bulletin.
1955.

112pp.,

• Reducing labor in handling feed.
Illinois Agricultural Extension Service Leaflet RE-15.
1955.

_

28 .

_

26.

29.

MAYER, I. D.
Agricultural engineering phases of farm
work simplification.
Agricultural Engineering.
28: XU-15, 19U7.

30.

M O S K I , B* A.
Materials'handling fundamentals.
Management.
1 0 7 ' 131-132, 19il9.

31.

NIC KELL, Paulena,
Marie BUD0LFS0N, Margaret LISm 0N and
Elizabeth WILLIS.
Farm family needs and preferences in
the north central region.
Iowa Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin 370.
173pp., 1951.

32.

PINCHES, H, E,
Farm work simplification.
Engineering.
25: 136-11} Ip, 19l|lf-.

33.

Preben-Jessen Co.
How to analyze and solve materials
handling problems - technique number two.
Factory
Management.
1 0 6 : 97-93, 19)1.8*

3k*

SAMSEL, L. G . Handling baled hay and straw.
Agricultural Engineering.
_2b: 191, 191p5.

3.3.

SCHIEBIN,
1951.

36.

SINGLEY, M. E.
New developments in self feeding silos.
Unpublished paper presented at the summer national
meeting of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers,
Roenoke, Virginia, 1956.

37.

SNEDEC0R, G. W.
Statistical Methods, Iowa State College
Press, Ames, Iowa~
ipb5pp., l51p6.

38.

STIPPLER, H. H. and A, W. PETERSON.
Electricity on
farms in north western Washington.
United States
Department of Agriculture Bulletin, FM77. 105pp., 1950.

39.

STOKER, H. E.
Co., 1951.

J. A.

Plant Layout,

Factory

Agricultural

Prentice-Hall Book Co.,

Materials Handling, Prentice-Hall Book

109
fy.0.

United States Department of Agriculture.
Changes in
farm production and efficiency.
U.S.D.A., ARSii3-33»
U3pp«, 1955 •

I4-.X•

VAUGHN, L. M. and L. S. HARDIN.
John Wil e y and Sons, New York.

I4.2 .

VINCENT, Warren.
Tillable acres and investments on area
five farms in Michigan.
Unpublished report presented at
a meeting of the Michigan Rural Electrification Committee,
January, 1957*

[j.3•

Westinghouse Electric Corp.
How to analyze and solve
materials handling problems - technique number one.
Factory Management.
1 0 6 : 8d-96, 19/4-8.

I4.i1.

WINTER, F. C. An approach to efficiency studies.
Agricultural Engineering.
yj_i Lj.82-li.b7> 1956.

i|5.

YOUNG, E. C. and L* S . HARDIN.
Simplifying farm work.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Yearbook of Agriculture,
pp. 817-823,
19*1-7•

Farm Work Simplification.
ll|5pp •, 191±9.

APPENDICES

IBM CARD PROGRAMMING CODE
IBM SUMMARY CARD PROGRAMMING CODE
COUNTY CODE NUMBERS
CONVERSION FACTORS USED TO CONVER
LIVESTOCK NUMBERS INTO LIVESTOCK
LABOR - MAN MONTHS

Ill

APPENDIX I
IBM CARD PROGRAMMING CODE

1 t I ' i I 3 I 4 15 I 6 I M

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

8 I 9 h o 111 I 12 i 13 I 14 I '5 116 | 17 I 18 I 19 I 20 | 21 [ ? ; 1 23] 24 I 25 | ;6 | 27 1 26 1 2 9 1 30 j 31 | 32 I 33 I 3 4 1 35 I 36 1 37 | 38 I 39 [ 40 1 41 1 42 | 43 [ 4 4 1 45 | 46 | 47

10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00000000000000000000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 58 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

: 49 i 5 0 1 5 1 1 52 1 53 I 54 | 55 | 56 1 57 | S8 [ 59 I 60)

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

00 0000000000000000000000 0000000000000000

13 1
415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 B0

111111111 11111111 111 1 111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111 11 11111111111111
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 70 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38 33 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

4444444444 4 4 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 56 59 60 51 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4444444444 4 4

3334 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 51 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

44 44 4 4 4 4
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
1 2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
3

4 5

6 7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

7374 75 76 77 78 79 80

666666666666 6666 6666

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78.79 80

7 77 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 77 7 7 7 7
1

23

1 2 3

4 5

4

5

6 7

6

7

8

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 j? l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 53 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

7273 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9j9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 =9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 S 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 S 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
l .2 3 .4 J5 6
M-SC. No. 1

7

8

9 l o j l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 i21 22 23 24 25 26 27

29 30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50|51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

7273 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
ASTCO 77X72

CARD 1
Columns 1-2
3-k
5
6-8
9-10:

:County number

(See APPENDIX III)

x Farm number within county

:Owner

(code no, 1) or tenant

(code no. 2)

r Acreage of farm enterprise
Operator age

11-12:

Family labor in man-months equivalent

13-lij.:

Hired labor in man-months

15-17:

Total labor in man-months

18-19:

Dairy cows

20-21:

Dairy young stock

22-23•

Beef cows

112

Columns 2li-25 *

Beef feeders per year

2 6 —27 5

Sows farrowed

28-30:

Hogs marketed per year

31-335

Ewes lambed

3li-3b:

Sheep marketed per year

37“^Or

Laying hens

1|1-LU|:

Broilers or fryers marketed per year

I+5-U-8:

Turkeys marketed per year

l_l_95

Type of farm enterprise
Code No. 1 - Dairy
No. 2 - Beef
No. 3 - Swine
No. 5 - Poultry
No. 6 - General livestock

50-55:

Total investment in materials handling
equipment•

56-60:

Total livestock labor months
(See APPENDIX IV)

61-65:

Relative labor requirement
„Total labor (man-months)
Total livestock labor months

7l^_79 :

Use of time saved (No. 1 is code)
7h

Expanded production

75

Reduced labor supply

76

More leisure time

77

Care of machinery

78

More care to production activities

79

Community and service activities

80

Card number

113

CARD 2
Columns 1-2

:

3-4. :

County number
Farm number within county

5-28 r

Hay handling data

Column 5 :
6-8

:

Baled

(1), Chopped (2) or Long-loosi

Annual tonnage

9 :
10-12:

Method of unloading
Man-hours per ton

13r
H1--16:

Methods of distributing in storage
Man-hours per ton

17:
18-20:

Method of removal
Man-hours per ton

22- 214.:

21:

Method of moving to feeding area
Man-hours per ton

25:
26-28:

Method of feeding
Man-hours per ton

29-52:

Silage handing data

Column 29:

Vertical silo (1),
or both (3)

Horizontal

(2)

30-32:

Annual tonnage * 10

3^:
3U.-36:

Method of unloading
Man-hours per ton

37:
38-40:

Method of distributing
Man-hours per ton

L|_l:
42-44:

Method of removing
Man-hours per ton

45:
46-48:

Method of moving to feeding area
Man-hours per ton

14-9:
50-52:

Method of feeding
Man-hours per ton

134

Columns 53-76:

Bedding handling data

Column 53*

Baled (l),
Chopped (2), Long-loose
or other (Ip)

51+-56:

Annual tonnage

57:
58-60r

Method of unloading
Man-hours per ton

61:

Method of distributing in storage

62-6)4.:: Man-hours per ton
65:

Column

66- 68 r

Method of removing
Man-hours per ton

69:
70-72:

Method of moving to area of use
Man-hours per ton

73:
7l|-76:

Method of distributing for use
Man-hours per ton

J9 :

Type of livestock enterprise

30:

Card number

CARD 3
Columns 1-2

:

3—Ip :
5-20:

County number
Farm number within county
Manure handling data

Columns 5-8:Annual tonnage
9:
10-12:

Method of removing from stable
Man-hours per ton

13:
1L|_-16:

Method of transporting to pile
Man-hours per ton

17:
10-20:

Method of loading into spreader
Man-hours per ton

(3)

US

Columns 21-35:

Small grain handling data

Columns 21-23:

Columns 36-l|9:

2k25-27:

Method of unloading
Man-hours per ton

28:
29-31:

Method of moving into storage
Man-hours per ton

32:
33-35:

Method of removal from storage
Man-hours per ton

Concentrates handling data

Columns 36-37:

Columns 50-61].:

Annual tonnage

38:
39-^1:

Method of unloading
Man-hours per ton

k2:
k3-k5t

Method of moving into storage
Man-hours per ton

Ij.6:
Ij_7-U9:

Method of removal from storage
Man-hours per ton

Ear corn handling data

Columns 50-52:

Columns 65-79:

Annual tonnage

Annual tonnage

53:
51±-56:

Method of unloading
Man-hours per ton

57:
56-60:

Method of moving into storage
Man-hours per ton

61:
62-6l^:'

Method of removing from storage
Man-hours per ton

Ground feed handling data

Columns 6 5 - 6 ? :

Annual

tonnage

68 r
69-71:

Method of grinding and blending
Man-hours per ton

72:
73-75:

Method of moving to feeding area
Man-hours per ton

76:
77-79:

Method of feeding
Man-hours per ton

116

CARD h.
Columns 1-2

:

County number

3-Lj. :

Parra number within county

5-21:

Auger elevator data

Column 5

Number of units
Initial cost

6-9
10-12

Annual repair cost

1 3-Hi

Wattage * 100

15-16

Age

17-18

Expected life (including age)

19-21

Hours used per year

Columns 22-38: Chain or belt conveyor data*
J+2-58: Blower data*
62-68: Grain bin unloader or meter data*
795 Type of livestock enterprise
80: Card number

CARP 5
1-2

*

:

County number

3-1+ :

Farm number within county

5-21:

Unloading wagon data*

22-38:

Barn cleaner data*

1i2-58:

Mechanical feeder data*

62-78:

Grain dispenser data*

79:

Type of livestock enterprise

80 :

Card number

Detailed within card field as outlined for auger
elevators, Card }±.

117

CARD 6
Columns 1-2

:

County number

3- 3 . :

Farm number within county

5-21:

Self-feeder data*

22-3^*

Tractor manure loader data*

32-58:

Silage distributor data*

62-73:

Feed cart data*

79:

Type of livestock enterprise

80:

Card number

CARD 7
1-2

:

County number

3-!+ :

Farm number within county

5-21:

Track type letter carrier data*

22-38:

Hay hoist data*

14.2-58:

Hammer mill data*

62-78:

Burr mill data*

79:

Type of livestock enterprise

80:

Card number

CARD 8
Columns 1-2

County number

3-3

Farm number within county

5-21

Other type grinder*

22 - 38 :

Corn sheller data*

Detailed within card field as outlined for auger
elevators, Card 3*

113

Columns 1+2-53: Peed mixer data*
79 : Type of livestock enterprise
30 : Card number

Detailed within card field as outlined for auger
elevators, Card l|_.

APPENDIX II
IBM SUMMARY CARD PROGRAMMING CCDS

f t l ^ l

3T4 | » | S | T | »|

1 2 3 4 S 6 7 B

9

9 T l 0 T 1 1 1 1 2 1 13 | 14 1 i s | 16 p 7 [ Y e T T a T M T i t T a l 2 3 1 2* I 25 I 26 | 27 | 28 | 2 9 1 30 | 3 1 1 3; | 33 | 3 4 1 35 [ 36] 37 ] 3 3 1 39 | 4 0 1 <l I 42; 43 [ 4 4 r»5~|~46T 47~f4al 49 1 50 f 51 | 5 2 1 S3 | 54 I S5 | 56 | 57 | 5 8 1 59 | s o )

10 11 12

13

1415 1617181920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

000000000000 0 0000000000000000000000000000 0
1 2 3 * 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

13

1415 1617181920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48 48 50[51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0000000000
43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

64

0000000000
6768
70 7$ 77 78 79 80
7165726673
746975

1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 11 11 11 11111111111111
1 2

3

4

5

E

7

B 9 10 11 12

13

222222222222 2
10 II 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3
T 2 3 4 5 E

1415 16 17181920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2B 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

2 22 2222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1415 1617181920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2S 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

5253 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 63 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

33 333 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

7 8 9

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4444444444

10 II 12

13

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

1415 1617181920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

10 11 12

13

1415 1617181920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

6

6 66 666 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13

1415 1617181920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10 11 12

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 51 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

55 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

66666666666 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 |61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

66 66666 6866

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

S3 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 60

666 6 6 6 6 6 6

6 666666606

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

7 7 77 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

77 777 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1415 16 17181920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10 11 12

13

3334 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

3334 35 36 37 38 33 40 41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 919 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

H IQ 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 13 20121 22 23 24 25, 26 27 £& 29 30 31.32 33 34 35 36 37. 38 39 40 41

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

88 888 88 888

88 88888888

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

99999999999999999999

73 74 7576 77 78 79 8D

9 9 9 99 9 9 9 9 9

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

7 3 74 7576 77 78 79 80

ASTCO 77*72

Columns 1-3 :

Sum of item indicated

11-18:

Sum of squares of item indicated

22-25:

Number of cards with item indicated
included in sum and sum of squares

120

A P P E N D IX I I I

COUNTY CODE
(Columns 1 and 2 on all cards)

01
02
03
Ok
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
II4.
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23

2li25

26
27

28
29
30

Alcona
Allegan
Alpena
Antrim
Arena
Barry
Bay
Benzie
Branch
Calhoun
Charlevoix
Cheboygan
Clare
Clinton
Crawford
Eaton
Emmel
Genessee
Gladwin
Grand Traverse
Gratiot
Hillsdale
Ingham
Ionia
Iosco
Isabella
J ackson
Kalamazoo
Kalkaska
Kent

31
32
33
3I435
36
37
38
39
I4.O

Lake
Leelanau
Lenewee
Livingston
Manistee
Mason
Mecosta
Midland
Missaukee
Monroe

1|_1
U-2
k3
I4J4i|5
14.6
14.7
14.8
lj.9
50

Montcalm
Montmorency
Muskegan
Kewaygo
Oakland
Oceana
Ogemaw
Osceola
Oscoda
Otsego

51
52
53

0t tawa
Roscommon
Saginaw
St, Joseph
Schi awassee
Van Buren
Washtenaw
Wexford

5k
55
56
57
58

121

A P P E N D IX I V

CONVERSION FACTORS USED TO CONVERT LIVESTOCK
NUMBERS INTO LIVESTOCK LABOR - NiAM MONTHS
(Source:
Dr. K. T. Wright, Agricultural
Economics Department, Michigan State University)

Type of Livestock

Man-Months Per Unit

Dairy cows

0.600

Young dairy stock

0,120

Beef cows

0.120

Beef feeder cattle

0.080

Sows farrowed

0.120

Hogs fattened

0,020

Ewes lambed

0.016

Sheep sold

0.00l|

Hens

0*008

Broilers or fryers

0.002

Turkeys raised

0.0 Op.