Farm Construction 2020
Special Section • Nov. 12, 2020
2
Thursday, November 12, 2020
www.agriview.com
Farm Construction
Farm buildings grow with agricultural practices Minnesota Historic Farms Study
“F
arm buildings are the farmer’s factory,” wrote agricultural engineer E.A. Fowler in 1913. Thirty years later one of Fowler’s colleagues wrote, “Adequate buildings are as essential in the efficient production of farm products as upto-date equipment is in the factory for producing manufactured goods.” Economist Martin Primack said in 1965, “The construction and improvement of farm buildings in the United States during the latter half of the 19th century was a task of farm-capital formation exceeded only by the effort to clear the land itself.” The planning, financing and construction of farm buildings was a significant part of the operation of every Midwestern farm whether the owner was a German-speaking subsistence farmer in the 1860s or a dairy farmer expanding into turkey production in the 1950s. A farmer wrote in 1912, “I know of no work about the farm which requires better judgment than to plan and arrange a set of farm buildings.” Land and buildings were the assets of greatest value on most farms, followed by livestock and then machinery. Farm-building designs were generally slow to evolve, in part because of a building’s considerable expense. Because of the risk involved farmers often built structures with which they were familiar. That helps explain the persistence of certain building practices within particular locales. The University of Minnesota’s John Neetzel and C.K. Otis wrote in 1959, “High initial cost limits the opportunities for experimenting with farm buildings. Once constructed a building must remain serviceable for many years to justify the cost. Consequently we hesitate to take chances on buildings that vary a great deal from accepted construction practices.” When planning new buildings farmers considered several factors. Economy in construction – Economy was almost always important as farmers made the significant investment necessary to construct a building. Funds for building construction were also needed for feed and livestock, machinery upgrade and repair, and food and clothing for the family. So farmers needed to allocate resources carefully. “In many localities a small barn is all that is needed,” wrote University of Minnesota staff in 1936. They suggested farms could begin with a
WISCONSIN HISTORICAL SOCIETY, IMAGE #41819
The Old Stone Barn near Neenah, Wisconsin, is highlighted on a 1920 postcard. Built By Harrison Reed in 1847, it was one of the oldest landmarks in Neenah.
16-foot by 18-foot barn for two cows, two horses and hay storage, with Dutch doors to provide both access and ventilation. Similar advice went out to settlers in northernMinnesota’s cutover region. “The first buildings should be small but serviceable unless the settler has a large amount of capital,” staff wrote. “There is more happiness and comfort in small quarters that are within one’s means than in a large place that is not paid for.” Careful planning to make the best use of limited space was important, as was learning from the experience of others. In the early settlement period most farmers built small structures that might serve for 20 years as fields were slowly created, as cash crops eventually were planted, and as settlers fought drought, storms, insects, illness and other challenges of the frontier. Remodeling and enlarging farmhouses,
barns and other outbuildings was common. Many farmers built modestly at first with the knowledge that they could expand a building later as production grew. Farm experts wrote articles and drew plans that promoted that practice and described how expansions could be best accomplished. In 1933 for example a Midwest Plan Service catalog described a modest 18-foot by 32-foot shed-roofed wooden barn designed for four horses and four dairy cows as being “rather complete and serving as a workable unit until funds permit additions.” Some plans for farm buildings clearly showed the footprint of future additions. Farmers also cut building costs by supplying their own materials when they could. It was common to use home-sawn timbers for beams, planks and shingles. Logs were often hauled to a local sawmill and the cut timbers or boards then hauled back. Other native
materials included field rock for foundations as well as sand and gravel for concrete. Window sash and some types of siding such as shiplap were generally purchased. One World War I-era author advised that farmers
1901 Fish Hatchery Road Madison, Wisconsin 53713 Toll-Free: 1-888-AGRI-VIEW Madison Phone: 608-250-4162 Madison Fax: 608-250-4155 agriview@madison.com www.agriview.com
www.agriview.com
Farm Construction could reduce construction costs by furnishing their own gravel, stone, rough lumber and labor. But they should expect to pay for cement, shingles, paint, nails, hardware and some additional construction labor. Farmers built structures with salvaged materials to reduce costs. Wood, which was traditionally the most popular building material in the Midwest, was reusable as well as being readily available and easy to work. One 1961 source suggested that reusing building materials was one way farmers could mitigate the fact that some farm structures would become obsolete as system and methods changed. For reasons of economy, moving buildings around the farm was also common as was adapting structures to new uses. In the 1910s proponents of the new field of “farm management” suggested that farmers redesign the entire layout of their farmsteads – many of which had evolved somewhat haphazardly – along sound scientific and modern management principles, and then slowly follow the plan to reorganize structures, roads and fields as time and resources would permit. The cost of labor to erect farm structures was often considerable but many farmers reduced the cost by doing much of the work themselves. Many had more time than cash.
Thursday, November 12, 2020
WISCONSIN HISTORICAL SOCIETY, IMAGE #31190
The Ramsey barn, now located at Old World Wisconsin in Eagle, Wisconsin, is shown in 1975. It was built in 1841 by William Barrie near Fort Atkinson in Jefferson County, Wisconsin.
There were other labor considerations as well. In an article about the advantages of cement silos – which were introduced in 1905 and proliferated in the 1910s – one expert wrote, “Speed of erection is a big argument to the farmer’s wife who is called
BEFORE YOU BUY CALL JIM OR AL!
Magnum 58
Manual or Motorized Probably The World’s Best Fan! 24 Volt DC Curtain System With an Incredible The Magnum 58” Exhaust Air Flow Rate of 0.87 Fan uses a maintenance free direct drive permanent magnet motor. It eliminates the need for greasing bearings and changing belts. The Housing is made of strong poly while the frame is all stainless steel preventing rust and corrosion in any environment. The complete fan includes durable poly damper doors that seal out air and light when closed. The Magnum 58” Fan is designed to operate in the full range from minimum ventilation to maximum power using basic 0-10 volt control signal which eliminates the need for smaller fans. Because of the high performance of the magnum 58” you’ll use 25% fewer fans on your next project making it your most economical choice.
J&D Mfg. DC Curtain system offers easy installation & trouble free operation. With the sealed keder curtain & matching roll tube, can be installed in a fraction of the time compare to conventional curtain systems.
See Podevels for all your J&D Equipment Needs!
Marshfield, WI 715-384-6193
upon to board the men.” The need to be cost-effective in new construction drove the quest for new materials that could be assembled more efficiently. Wartime labor shortages intensified the situation and eventually led to prefabricated buildings.
3
One answer to economy in building was standardization, which reduced costs by simplifying construction and reducing the number of unique building materials and parts needed. Standardization encouraged the factory production of parts and reduced the variety of materials carried by local dealers. Standardization changed building designs in several ways. Door and window widths, for example, were standardized to allow the use of factory-made sash. The width of cow stalls was standardized to allow farmers to buy factory-made stanchions. The desire to encourage standardization was one factor that compelled 12 land-grant colleges to jointly create the Midwest Plan Service in 1932. In one barn plan developed by the service in the 1930s, 75 percent of the lumber needed was standard-sized dimensional lumber that required no cutting before placement. Standardization also sped the dissemination of ideas. One agricultural engineer explained in a 1942 article on corncribs, “Prefabrication of storage structures can play a much-greater part in this market than it has in the past. It is much easier to demonstrate to a few manufacturers the Please see HISTORY, Page 4
4
Thursday, November 12, 2020
www.agriview.com
Farm Construction
History From 3
basic requirements for corncribs that it is to educate all the farmers who grow corn (and build their own structures).” Farm labor efficiency – Reducing farm operating labor was another major focus of farm-building design. One author wrote in 1912, “Fifteen minutes saved each morning, noon and night in doing the barn chores is an important item … Forty-five minutes each day constitute 274 hours each year. At 15 cents an hour this amounts to $41.10, enough to pay six percent interest on $685.” That $685 translates to a loan of $12,800 in 2003 dollars. The debate about whether dairy barns should be designed with the stanchioned cows facing in toward the center or out toward the side walls was focused on the labor of twice-daily milking. When the cows faced inward, some argued, labor was saved through better illumination of the milking process by light coming in the sidewall windows. When the cows faced outward, however, the farmer could more easily move the milking stool, wash pails and milking equipment from cow to cow across the center alley. Technical materials on building design almost always mentioned labor efficiency. A 1916 source suggested that barns have no more than two rows of stalls to make best use of window light, that they have multiple doors so each type of livestock could be easily let into their yard, that hay chutes and grain bins be located near feeding troughs, and that mow doors be freely accessible to wagons. A 1936 University of Minnesota source recommended that stairs, ladders, chutes, litter and feed carriers, and similar devices in buildings all helped save valuable time. Building maintenance and operation – Reducing building maintenance and operating costs were also important design goals. Wooden farmhouses, barns and other buildings needed to be repainted frequently to prevent deterioration. That led some farmers to choose brick, hollow clay tile, concrete block and other materials that required less maintenance. Corrugated sheet metal became popular for durability as well as speed of erection. Many farmers also used masonry and sheet metal to reduce the fire-loss threat inherent in wood. Optimizing output – One goal of farmbuilding design was to increase production by making buildings function as well as possible for their intended purposes. Technical bulletins, magazine articles and advertising circulars were full of examples of milk gone sour, poultry so cold they wouldn’t eat and
WISCONSIN HISTORICAL SOCIETY, IMAGE #88604
A woman and her dog stand in 1924 at the doorway of a concrete-block milk house near Orfordville in Rock County, Wisconsin. The block was promoted as an easy, cheap and durable building material that anyone could make themselves. — From an Agricultural Extension photo album
piglets dying because of inadequate buildings. The losses hurt individual famers and the entire agricultural industry, which was a huge part of the U.S. economy. On the other hand technical sources were rich with examples of building improvements that easily paid for themselves in productivity gains – whether they involved labor saved, grain preserved or gains in livestock weight. The trend toward analyzing the specific functional requirements of each type of agriculture, and then customizing farm buildings to meet those requirements, began in earnest in the 1910s. The research accelerated considerably in the mid-century and resulted in huge productivity gains after World War II. Livestock farmers and agricultural engineers continually sought ways to increase production by improving animal health. Hog cholera, bovine tuberculosis, and the parasites and viruses that plagued poultry were just a few of the diseases that challenged designers. Farmers experimented with concrete floors to increase sanitation, well-placed flues to increase stable ventilation, compartmentalized mangers so cows wouldn’t share food, and movable poultry and farrowing houses to avoid soil-borne parasites. Farmers added guard rails to pig stalls so sows wouldn’t accidently crush piglets, created cool areas in brooder houses so chicks would feather out faster and therefore not peck each other, and built wider doors in sheep barns so ewes wouldn’t be injured when they all tried to enter the barn at the same time. In cold climates some experts recommended that dairy and general-purpose
barns be no wider than 34 feet so the heat generated by the animals would keep the interior temperature optimal with no supplemental heat. Dairy cows didn’t produce well if they were cold and uncomfortable. Storing hay and straw in the mow also helped conserve heat. Heat conservation also figured into a debate about hog-house design. In the early 20th century many hog houses were built with monitor roofs incorporating a row of windows to allow light from the south to shine into the stalls during farrowing. “This was done on the assumption that the sunshine would, first, warm the house, second, keep it dry, and third, provide for an ultraviolet bath for the little pigs.” Instead farmers in northern states found that in February and March when the sows farrowed, the sun only shone directly into the monitor windows for about two hours per day and, for the rest of the time, the monitor caused heat loss as the heat traveled upward into the monitor and out the windows. Water also condensed on the window glass and dripped into the stall. The result was a cold damp hog house and pig losses, rather than the warm dry house that had been sought. Attention to the particulars of building design could be quite detailed. In 1916 the American Society of Agricultural Engineers’ “Subcommittee on Barn Floors” reported on their continuing study of the best materials for barn flooring. The committee agreed that most floors needed to be durable, warm, waterproof, noiseless, somewhat cushioning and provide good
traction. “Cork brick,” “mastic asphalt” and poured concrete over a layer of insulating hollow tile were recommended for stall floors. Creosoted wood blocks were recommended for work floors such as in feed rooms. Poured concrete and mastic asphalt were recommended for chore alleys, and thick wooden planks or poured concrete over hollow tile were recommended for mow floors and upper storage rooms. Each material had its drawbacks for large areas. Poured concrete was cold, slippery and prone to cracking. Brick was cold and difficult to clean. Cork brick was too expensive. Mastic asphalt was slippery and soft in hot weather. Response to changing methods – Farm-building design evolved as farm methods changed. Granaries were made taller for the use of mechanical elevators. Hay mows were enlarged to accommodate hay carriers. Doors and manure alleys were widened as tractor-drawn manure spreaders replaced hand carts. Cow stalls became a standard size to receive factory-made stanchions and other fixtures. Implement sheds grew larger to house more machinery. The speed of change intensified with electrification and the labor-saving devices it brought to the farm. It increased again in the World War II era when labor shortages spurred the adoption of more new technology. According to one designer, buildings constructed after the war needed to assume “electric lights, water systems, milking machines, improved types of selffeeders and feed bunks, mechanical feedhandling and feed–conveying equipment, silo unloaders, manure cleaners, poultry waterers and similar devices.” As farm mechanization increased, the need for a building to respond to shifting methods became more urgent until finally flexibility itself became a leading design goal. Prior to about 1930 many farm buildings were designed for permanence. Barns were expected to last for several generations. Farm couples sought to pass on to their children a collection of solid wellmade buildings. Materials were chosen to be as long-lasting as could be afforded, with many experts arguing that repair costs would be less on “the durable building.” William Boss, head of Agricultural Engineering at the University of Minnesota, said in 1935 that farmers should be building barns and homes to last 100 years or more. Several months later, however, another agricultural engineer cautioned that farmers shouldn’t invest too much on structures that might eventually become obsolete. “We know in recent years the idea of permanence has been rather strongly emphasized, and I do not want to be understood as discarding it without further and most
Farm Construction
5
thoughtful consideration,” he wrote. “There are today barns built of so-called permanent materials which are so permanent that they cannot be economically rebuilt to take advantage of new and improved methods and practices … There is no justification in putting up a long-lived masonry structure if we have to destroy it with dynamite within a few years. In American agriculture there is no value in such ruins.” The goal of flexibility was not completely new. For years some farmers and experts had favored wooden buildings over those of masonry because they could be remodeled more easily. And designers had tried to reduce the number of interior structural bents in barns so that interior spaces could be modified more easily. By the mid-1930s, however, the goals of adaptability and flexibility were receiving new emphasis. A 1933 advertising circular warned farmers, “Farm conditions are changing faster today than ever before … To meet changing conditions may require farmers to readjust building and equipment to serve such production as is most promising from a market standpoint.” A Minnesota farmer wrote in 1939, “Farming is not static. Methods, machines and practices of today are outmoded tomorrow … We need to recognize the changing character of production.” Agricultural engineer D. Howard Doane said in 1941, “I want short, rather than long-life, buildings.” He argued that few in the industry could see forward 20 years, which was the average depreciable life of a wood-frame building. He explained he wanted his farm buildings “to have maximum, continuous and alternate use … Well-planned buildings with removable partitions can be used for beef cattle, horses, mules, sheep and dairy loafing barns … Alternate use makes maximum use possible.” In 1956 agricultural engineer Deane Carter said farm buildings were becoming obsolete because of changes in farming practices rather than due to deterioration of the buildings. Single-use buildings were deficient because they weren’t readily adaptable to other purposes. Agricultural engineer J.T. Clayton wrote of dairy barns in 1960, “It must be constantly borne in mind that flexibility of the entire system is of utmost importance because of rapidly changing technology. A good solution last year may not be a good solution now and very likely will not be the best solution next year. It must be possible to change the facility with changing production requirements and farming methods.”
LOW HORSEPOWER LESS FUEL CONSUMPTION
WE ARE YOUR BEDDING HEADQUARTERS
www.agriview.com
AGRI CHOPPER
CONTACT THESE DEALERS FOR MORE INFORMATION: WISCONSIN MT. HOREB
ANTIGO Rew Motors 715-627-7124
Field Silo & Equipment, Inc.
608-437-5561
APPLETON
NEWTON
R&M Farm Systems 920-788-3505
Hartlaub Equipment
ARCADIA
920-758-2132
D&D Farm Supply, Inc. 800-657-6955
OCONTO
ARKANSAW
920-834-2075
Anibas Silo & Equip 715-285-5317
PLOVER
BLUE RIVER
WI Silos, Inc.
Blue River Harvestor Repair Inc. 608-537-2746
POTTER
CHIPPEWA FALLS Chippewa Farm Service, LLC 715-577-8372
NEW GENERATION
▼
BEDDING CHOPPER
BEDDING CART
28”
920-853-3516
PULASKI Brown’s Farm Service, LLC 920-373-0965
Ruf’s Farm Service, Inc. 608-776-4048
REEDSBURG Bindl Sales & Service 608-524-6339
DEPERE
RUBICON
Fritsch Equip. Corporation 920-532-6292
Gehring Sales & Service
DURAND
WEYAUWEGA
Komro Sales & Service 715-672-4263 Armstrong Welding & Repair LLC 920-477-5141
HORTONVILLE Knuth Farm Equipment, LLC 920-757-6995
262-673-4920 Spiegelberg Implement, Inc. 920-596-2610
WHITEWATER The Scharine Group 800-472-2880
WITHEE Hoover Silo Repair LLC 715-229-2527
KAUKAUNA
MINNESOTA
L&L Sales & Service 920-766-0603
LAKE GENEVA George Leedle Sales & Service 262-275-6631
MORA, MN Fluegges Ag. 320-679-2981
IOWA
MELROSE Nordstrom Construction & Lumber Inc. 608-488-2401
SELF-PROPELLED BEDDING CHOPPER
Gruetts Inc.
Brubaker Ag Equipment, LLC 715-613-7308
EDEN
48”
715-344-9503
CURTISS/EDGAR DARLINGTON ▼
Dumke Sales & Service
MAQUOKETA Anamosa Silo Repair, LLC 563-652-5125
VALMETAL IS A FAMILY OWNED COMPANY
THE LARGEST LINE OF FEEDING EQUIPMENT IN NORTH AMERICA
t. 608 374-2206 FOLLOW US
info@valmetal.com
valmetal.com
6
Thursday, November 12, 2020
www.agriview.com
Farm Construction
Consider energy when building Extension.org
Agricultural buildings are important to the successful operation of farms and ranches. They deserve careful attention when it comes to managing energy expenses. The best time to incorporate energy efficiency that will yield the best savings and the lowest operating costs is during the design and construction phase. Unfortunately energy efficiency is often ignored when farm buildings are constructed. Energy-efficient building design involves the selection of appropriate energy-efficient materials and equipment. It addresses the layout and orientation of the building in a way that is intrinsically energy-efficient. Farmers should resist the urge to reduce
construction costs by eliminating proven energy-efficient equipment and designs. That almost always reduces a farm’s profitability in the long run. There are many improvements that can be made to existing farm buildings that will increase the energy efficiency of the building. Probably the best advice when it comes to farm-building energy efficiency is to utilize the services of a qualified energy specialist and a farmstead planner to review building plans and make recommendations – whether for new construction or existing facilities. Having efficient material and traffic flows in and around the farmstead can improve labor as well as energy efficiency. In addition to that it pays to understand some of the common ways that farm buildings can be made more energy-efficient.
Farm-shop facts, actions needed The farm shop is often the second-mostused building during the winter next to the home. It needs to be well-insulated and sealed to keep energy use to a minimum. • Install insulation with an R-30 to R-40 value in the ceiling and R-18 value in the sidewalls. Doors should have an R-value of 10 to 12 – 2 inches of foam insulation. • Install weatherstripping if doors don’t fit tightly and allow significant amounts of cold air in. Air infiltration is one of the largest heat wasters in many buildings. • Install 1 or 2 inches of extruded polystyrene – enclosed cell insulation – at least 2 feet below ground level around the shop foundation. Any concrete exposed above ground level needs insulation. The insulation above-ground needs to be covered to
prevent physical damage from birds, rodents and sunlight. Be sure to extend the insulation cover well below ground level for at least 6 inches or more. The foundation insulation should lap the wall insulation to provide continuous insulation. • Waste engine oil is an excellent source of heat. Used engine oil tends to accumulate extremely fast during times when farm engines are operating. Store the oil in a large barrel to use for heating during the winter. Several manufacturers make waste-oil heaters and many can use fuel oil if waste oil runs out. Service and inspect heaters annually to ensure proper operation. • Keep the number and size of windows Please see FARM SHOP, Page 7
• SLATTED FLOOR MANURE STORAGE • BUNKER SILOS • FEED BUNKS • GRAIN STORAGE
Comparison of Mechanical Ventilation Systems Tunnel
Ventilation System
Cross
Along the length of the barn Usually 4 or 6 rows
Air flow direction Rows of stalls Usual fan location (to avoid fans working against prevailing winds) Air flow distance
Across the width of the barn Can be designed with 4-16 rows
South end of a NS oriented barn or East end of an EW oriented barn Usually longer than a cross
Usually shorter than a tunnel Along the entire length of the At the end wall or along the side Inlet location barn, providing evenly distributed walls at one end of the barn air entry over a greater distance Problems with air flow along the Air travels perpendicular to the feed and stall alleys once the air alleys, with potentially better Air distribution enters the barn – path of least distribution of air in the cow pen, resistance but still moves along cross alleys Function well to distribute air at Influence air flow over very few Use of baffles to redirect the high speed over a row of stalls stalls – not recommended air toward the cow along the length of the barn More restricted space to provide Use of Evaporative Cooling Better designed along the inlet for necessary surface area Pads even distribution Roof pitch and openings potentially Wide-body barns usually have low suitable for natural ventilation in Natural ventilation option roof pitch and side wall location of winter/spring/fall fans precludes use as an inlet Air distribution problematic at low Potential for natural ventilation and air changes/h – freezing alleys improved air flow with lower risk for Winter ventilation along inlet side of barn common freezing and trapped air between baffles Problematic as frequently located Largely independent of barn – but at the air discharge side of the transfer lane must be managed as a Location of the milking center barn. Transfer lane may also serve potential inlet as an inlet. Optional natural ventilation in an 24/7 requiring back-up generator Energy dependence emergency and emergency plan Poorer control of light intensity in Potential for better control of light barns with a natural ventilation Photoperiod intensity option Generally barns are traditional Potential to increase #cows width, but they may be spaced Footprint housed in available space in widecloser together (60’) vs naturally bodies barns ventilated barns (100’)
High Capacity Fenceline Feedbunk
• At 20" Deep It's The Largest Bunk On the Market • At 3600 Lbs Per 8'-0" Section It's The Heaviest Bunk
WIESERCONCRETE.COM • 800-325-8456
East side of a NS oriented barn or North of an EW oriented barn
CREST Precast, Inc.
La Crescent, MN - Barneveld, WI 1-800-658-9045 • Professional Design, Manufacturing and Contracting • Innovative Products for the Successful Dairy Business • S.C.S. Approved Storage Tanks • U.S.D.A. Accepted Precast Parlor Walls • Bunk Feeders • Water Tanks • Reception Tanks • Slotted Floors • Bunker Silos
www.agriview.com
Farm Construction
Thursday, November 12, 2020
Farm shop
Questions to ask about Farm Shops
From 6
to a minimum. They increase heat loss and limit useable wall space for tools. Also they usually provide little light in the shop because the days are short in winter and the light they provide is usually near the wall where they’re installed. • Install double- or triple-glazed windows to help reduce heat loss and reduce moisture condensation. A window with single glazing will have an R-value of about 0.9 whereas a double-glazed window with an inert gas between panes will have an R-value of 3 to 4, reducing heat loss by 60 percent to 75 percent. • Good overhead lighting is a necessity in a shop. Use pulse-start metal halide or T-8 fluorescent lamps for economical lighting that will keep electricity use to a minimum and give good lighting to work on equipment. T-8 lamps are recommended because they will use about 25 percent less electricity for the same amount of light as the pulse-start metal halide. They provide light instantly and will not flicker in cooler temperatures like the common T-12 fluorescent lamps do. Metal halides can take two to three minutes to emit
CONTRIBUTED
A farm shop needs to be well-insulated and sealed to keep energy use to a minimum.
light. Therefore if used it would be helpful to have some compact fluorescent or T-8 fluorescent lamps to provide light when entering the shop or running in to grab a tool or part. • Install large doors for bringing machinery in and out of the shop so they face away from prevailing winter winds. Prevailing winter winds are usually from the northwest. Installing large doors facing south or east will prevent a considerable amount of heat loss when doors are opened. Bring large cold equipment inside the shop to warm the night before working on it.
INVEST
• Use zone heating. Heat only the areas that need to be heated with directional or radiant heaters – over work benches, for examples. They heat objects but not the air directly. Separating the shop from the storage area, even with a plastic curtain, can save a significant amount of heat. Turn off or reduce the heat when it’s not needed. If using unit heaters use the power-vented or condensing type; avoid gravity-vented unit heaters. A power-vented unit heater and a condensing-type unit heater are 13 percent and 28 percent, respectively, more efficient
Is insulation adequate in the walls, ceiling and doors of the shop? Do the doors fit tightly to limit air infiltration? Is there insulation around the shop floor and foundation that extends at least 2 feet below ground? Is waste engine oil used for heating the shop? Is there good economical lighting in the shop? Is there a minimal amount of windows in the shop? Are windows double-glazed? Do large shop doors face south or east? Is there a dense shelterbelt on the west and north sides of the farmstead? Source — extension.org
than a gravity-vented unit heater. • Dense shelterbelts reduce wind velocity and energy needed to heat the shop. Short dense trees should be located on the edge of the shelterbelt with taller trees in the middle. Shelterbelts should be a minimum of 200 feet from the shop or other buildings to reduce the problem of snow buildup.
Which Barn is Best For Your Herd? Starwood Rafter Uses:
IN A FREESTALL BARN/PARLOR WOOD or STEEL FRAME - WE KNOW HOW!! Call Us For Building Tours and To Discuss YoUr New ProjeCT! Since
1977!
7
1-800-242-8085 www.forestbuildings.com
STATEWIDE CONSTRUCTION & UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN MEMBER: WI Frame Builders Association • MEMBER: Dairy Business Association
• Pole Sheds • Free Stalls • Pavilion Shelters • Machinery Storage • Riding Arena Birds just love this barn. The webs in these trusses are easy nest areas for birds. They also restrict air flow which leads to poor ventilation and moisture buildup in the building.
• Spans up to 72 ft. • Stronger. Can be spaced up to 12 feet apart depending on the load you desire • Bird Nesting Control
The arched rafters create a more open barn allowing better ventilation. Also since there are no open webs in the trusses, there are no places for birds to nest.
www.
starwoodrafters.com W24141 Starwood Lane Independence, WI 54747
• Better Ventilation & Visibility • No Feed Alley Post Obstruction • Additional Ceiling Height
CALL TOLL FREE:
888-525-5878
8
Thursday, November 12, 2020
www.agriview.com
Farm Construction
Livestock buildings facts, actions needed Confined-livestock structures need ventilation to remove heat and moisture, and maintain air quality. The amount of ventilation needed varies depending on air temperatures inside and outside the building, amount of moisture to be removed, odors to be controlled, and the heat produced by animals and equipment. To reduce energy requirements for ventilation equipment, determine the number of fans needed to do the job. Operate only those fans for as short a time as possible. For example less ventilation is usually required in winter than in spring or fall – and much less than in summer. Summer ventilation needs are usually great due to heavy heat loads. Winter-ventilation needs are usually reduced because buildings need only enough air exchange to remove moisture and maintain air quality. Fan efficiency is reduced if obstructions are located near or in front of fans. Several advances in technology have improved energy efficiency for livestock buildings – such as efficient space heating, heat lamps, creep pads and more-energyefficient milking equipment. • Preventing dust on fan components helps motors operate cooler and prolongs their life. Clean fan blades move more air. Dirt, chaff and animal hair clinging to protective guards reduce air flow. Dirty louvers and shutters that don’t open fully can reduce air flow by 40 percent. They should be cleaned and lubricated with a dry lubricant such as graphite so more dirt isn’t attracted. Loose fan belts can slip and reduce air flow by 30 percent. Fan-belt tension and condition should be checked semiannually. Install self-tensioning devices on fans if possible to reduce the chore of tightening belts. • Ventilation inlets need to be cleaned annually and adjusted for proper operation if they’re adjustable. • Natural ventilation uses airflow passages that allow clean air to enter a building to displace stagnant or dirty air. The difference in building pressure and atmospheric pressure caused by wind passing over the building and by the thermal buoyancy of air creates air movement. Using natural ventilation wherever possible will save energy by reducing the number of ventilation fans needed for an air exchange. Natural ventilation is typically used on open-sided buildings with curtain sidewalls and open roof peaks, such as dairy-freestall barns. The curtain sidewall can be closed during cold or inclement weather to protect animals. • It’s important to size fans correctly for
building ventilation. Fans that are larger than necessary waste energy and produce a cold air blast in the winter. Undersized fans won’t adequately exchange building air. Airinlet size should be equal or larger than that required for the fan capacity or the fans will operate at a greater static pressure than necessary, using additional energy. • Automatically controlled ventilation systems reduce unnecessary fan operation and provide more-uniform climate control. Variable-speed controllers can be used to control the amount of air exhausted by slowing or increasing the speed of a single fan based on building temperature. • Select fans that are energy-efficient. Fan efficiency is measured in cubic feet per minute per watt. It reflects the air moved per energy consumed at a specific static pressure. There’s a two-fold difference between the best- and worst-performing fans. Poor choices could create ventilation costs twice what they would have been if the proper fan had been chosen. • BESS Lab at the University of Illinois is a source of independent test data for agricultural ventilation fans and has online access to fan-test results. The recommended minimum efficiency for a fan 36 inches or larger is 20 cubic feet per minute per watt at a static pressure of 0.05 inch of water. Increased values of cubic feet per minute per watt indicate more-efficient fans. • Fans with diffuser or discharge cones are 12 percent to 26 percent more efficient than fans without them. • Large-diameter fans are more efficient than smaller-diameter fans. One method to have the energy-efficiency advantage of a large fan and the usefulness of several small fans is to install a variable-speed controller on a large fan with a temperature sensor. The fan speed can be changed at preset temperature points to reduce over-ventilation while maintaining temperature. The fan will act like a bank of small fans; as the temperature increases the fan speed will increase. When the fan runs at a slower speed, the energy use is reduced by the cube of the percentage of full speed. For example a fan running at half speed will move half the air flow it would at full speed but use only about 15 percent of the energy required if the fan was operated at full speed. • Significant energy savings can be achieved through zone climate control. The savings come from heating or ventilating only rooms or areas of buildings that are used or need more climate control. • Insulation in livestock-confinement buildings is necessary to reduce heat loss
and condensation on walls and ceiling. Insulation should be protected from damage by birds and rodents. • Beef and dairy calves may not require supplemental heat unless they are born during inclement weather. A “hot box” or small room with radiant heat may be useful for that purpose. • Baby swine and poultry require precise temperature and humidity regulation that’s normally engineered into the building. But additional or spot heat can be provided if required. Certain safety precautions need to be considered. Energy-saving options are available. • Heated creep pads for swine are more energy-efficient than heat lamps and more evenly distribute the warmth. • Hovers provide small enclosed areas that capture heat and reduce drafts to provide a comfortable environment for baby pigs. That allows the overall building temperature to be kept cooler. • Radiant heaters can be used to heat larger areas. They warm the animals and objects in the building without directly heating the air, which reduces heating requirements.
Questions to ask about Livestock Facilities Are fan blades, motors and housings clean? Can natural ventilation be used rather than electrical fans? Are ventilation fans the correct size for the number of animals in the building? Would automatic controls improve the efficiency of the application? Would zone heating and ventilation systems be appropriate? Would an air-to-air heat exchanger be appropriate? Is insulation and ventilation adequate to prevent condensation problems? Are the heating systems for the livestock facility properly adjusted and sized? Are thermostats accurate and located so they aren’t affected by drafts and direct sunlight? Is more building insulation necessary? Is appropriate and most-energy-efficient technology being used for livestock operations?
Now g Buildrin amed SteelilFdings! Bu
MPB BUILDERS 654 E. Oshkosh St. • Ripon, WI 54971
FROM PLANNING TO COMPLETION • Commercial • Agricultural • Hobbies • Suburban • Building Packages & Material • Residential Metal Roofing
Your industry leader in post frame construction
800-782-9632
www.mpbbuilders.com
www.agriview.com
Farm Construction
Thursday, November 12, 2020
9
Capital expenditures forecast to improve MICHAEL LANGEMEIER Purdue University
Real U.S. net farm income is forecasted to be about $102.0 billion in 2020, which if realized would represent the largest net farm income since 2013. Real U.S. capital expenditures on machinery, buildings and land improvements peaked in 2014 at $47.9 billion, but are forecasted to only be $29.9 Michael billion in 2020. It will be Langemeier interesting to see if capital expenditures increase in response to potentially increased net farm income in the next couple of years. This article examines trends in capital expenditures and compares capital expenditures to capital consumption. Real-capital expenditure trends detailed Figure 1 illustrates real U.S. farm-capital expenditures and consumption from 1973 to 2020. The 2020 value represents
a forecast. Capital expenditures and consumption are expressed in 2019 dollars in Figure 1. Capital expenditures include tractors, trucks, autos, machinery, buildings and miscellaneous capital expenditures. Capital consumption represents the declining balance of capital stock or economic depreciation. Using Figure 1, two large increases in capital expenditures and two large decreases in capital expenditures have occurred since 1973. The first increase Please see FORECAST, Page 10
Figure 1. Source: USDA-Economic Research Service
N14685 Copenhaver Ave., Stanley, WI 54768 (715) 644-0765 Fax: (715) 644-4931
• Waste Storage • Feed Storage • Anaerobic Digesters Superior Agitation NRCS Pre-Approved Ramp Accessible Unlimited Storage Capacity No Maintenance 10” - 18” Wall Thickness Can Be Placed In or Out Of Ground
Call Dennis at 920-948-9661 www.pippingconcrete.com
BUY DIRECT!! We Manufacture !!!! We specialize in complete post frame building packages. Call us for a quote or stop in and we will help you design. We rollform steel panels to exact length. • 26 ga. 16” Snap-Loc • 28 ga. G-100, 40 year • 29 ga. G-60, 30 year • Silverline Windows • CHI Overhead Doors • Plyco Service Doors
All our steel panels & custom trims are manufactured in Stanley, WI
10
www.agriview.com
Thursday, November 12, 2020
Figure 3. Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
Figure 2. Source: USDA-Economic Research Service
Forecast From 9
Farm Construction
occurred during the 1973-to-1979 period. During that period real capital expenditures increased from $46.9 billion in 1973 to $59.2 billion in 1979. The 1979 peak
represents the greatest annual capitalexpenditures level since 1973. The second increase occurred during
the 2009-to-2014 period. During that period real capital expenditures increased from $27.5 billion to $47.9 billion. The first
FARM WIRING GRANTS AVAILABLE— GET UP TO $10,000 TO HELP UPDATE YOUR FARM’S ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. Call the Business Solutions Center for details 800.481.4700.
© 2017 Xcel Energy Inc.
CONCRETE BUILDINGS EQUIPMENT REMODELING 800-236-0603
www.cowcomfortzone.com
Farm Construction
11
large decrease in real capital expenditures occurred from 1979 to 1986. Real capital expenditures declined about 71 percent from the 1979 peak to the 1986 trough. The second-largest decrease is currently playing out. Since the 2014 peak real capital expenditures have declined about 37 percent.An alternative way to examine trends in capital expenditures and consumption is to compute the ratio of capital expenditures to capital consumption. That ratio is depicted in Figure 2. A ratio of more than 1 indicates that capital is being replaced at a rate greater than economic depreciation. Conversely a ratio of less than 1 indicates that economic depreciation is larger than capital replacement. The average ratio during the 1973-to-2020 period was 1.020, which indicates that – on average – capital replacement exceeded capital consumption. The annual ratio appears to be quite cyclical. The ratio of capital expenditures to capital consumption was: • more than 1 from 1973 to 1980 • less than 1 from 1981 to 1997 • more than 1 from 1998 to 2013 • less than 1 from 2014 to 2018 • more than 1 in 2019 and 2020 The least annual ratios occurred during the 1980s farm financial crisis. There was a substantial decrease in capital expenditures in the 1980s. At the trough in 1986 the ratio of capital expenditure to capital consumption was only 0.52. The three biggest ratios occurred in 2008 at 1.73, in 2010 at 1.47 and in 2011 at 1.70. Obviously U.S. farms replaced a substantial portion of depreciable capital during the 2007-to2013 period. The ratio decreased from 0.92 to 0.67 from 2014 to 2016, and then increased to 1.08 in 2020. The fact that the ratio has been at more than 1 the past couple of years indicates that U.S. farms have been able to fully compensate for the decline in machinery value associated with economic depreciation, through machinery purchases the past couple of years. The discussion applies to total capital expenditures. The changes in expenditures since the most recent peak in 2014 differs among expenditure categories. Data by expenditure category is not available for 2020, so percentage decreases were computed using 2014 and 2019 data. • Decline in total capital expenditures from 2014 to 2019 was 32.9 percent. • D ecline in expenditures for tractors at 25.3 percent, autos at 32.4 percent and buildings at 20.8 percent were Please see FORECAST, Page 12
LOYAL FARM EQUIPMENT VIEW FULL CATALOG • PRICES • CLOSEST DEALER
www.loyal-roth.com Flex-Hutch
Calf Hutches
Ultra Flex-Pen
Group Hutch
NEW
Poly Scrapers
Geyer and Hosaja Mats and Rolled Mats
Single-Chain Elevator
Vinyl-Strip Door
MFG Co.
P.O. Box 40 Loyal, WI 54446
FREE 90 Page Printed Catalog
1-800-472-2341 E-mail: info@loyal-roth.com
Rugged Equipment ... Priced Right ... Since 1956!
12
Thursday, November 12, 2020
Forecast From 11
less than than the decrease in total capital expenditures. • In contrast expenditures for trucks at 38.9 percent, machinery at 41 percent and land improvements at 35.5 percent were relatively more than the decline in total capital expenditures. Capital spending diffusion index explained The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City has reported a capital diffusion index on a quarterly basis since second-quarter 2002. The diffusion index is computed by asking bankers whether capital spending during a quarter was more than, less than or the same as in the year-earlier period. The index is then computed by subtracting the percentage of bankers who responded “less” from the percentage who responded “more” and adding 100. An index of less than 100 indicates that capital spending is relatively less than the year-earlier period. Conversely an index of more than 100 indicates that capital spending is relatively more than the yearearlier period.Figure 3 reports the capital
www.agriview.com
spending diffusion index from secondquarter 2002 to second-quarter 2020. An index of less than 100 means that a greater percentage of agricultural bankers thought capital spending was less than the percentage of agricultural bankers who thought capital spending was more. The index has been at less than 100 since second-quarter 2013. The reduced index since then occurred in third-quarter 2016 – with a diffusion index value of 15. The index value was 50 in first-quarter 2020 and 31 in second-quarter 2020. Conclusions Real capital expenditures on U.S. farms have decreased significantly since 2014. In addition the capital spending diffusion index reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City has been less than 100 since second-quarter 2013. Real net farm income in 2020 is projected to be more than the long-run average since 1973. If net farm income remains relatively inflated during the next couple of years, we will probably see an increase in capital expenditures for machinery, buildings and land improvements. Michael Langemeier is an agricultural economist with Purdue University. Visit ag.purdue.edu for more information.
Farm Construction
Specializing in Quality Post Frame Buildings
• Commercial • Equestrian Wisconsin 1260 Lincoln Ave. Fennimore, WI 608-988-6338
• Hobby Shops • Agricultural Eastern Colorado 222 Oak Avenue Eaton, CO 80615 970-230-2052
• Garages • And more! Nebraska & Western Iowa 1626 Washington St. Blair, NE 68008 402-426-5022
www.GingerichStructures.com S.D. Ellenbecker! Specializing in all type of concrete construction, including a variety of dairy industry and agricultural structures
Innovative construction methods... Ellenbecker is one of the first to introduce an all-metal frame method of agricultural construction to the area.
Cost effective... All-metal construction requires fewer posts and columns. A standard all-metal barn would contain four columns instead of six found in most wood barns. Durable, safer materials... Structures are far less susceptible to fire since no wood is used in the construction process. Buildings are more resistant to natural elements than wooden counterparts.
The concrete experts... • Barn additions • Barn remodeling projects • Concrete cow yards • Dairy complexes and structures • Free-stall and standard barns • Manure storage facilities • Milking parlors • Water reservoirs
1222 Mount View Lane, Athens, WI 54411 Office: 715-257-7666 Web: sdellenbecker.com Cell: Tom - 715-581-6404 • Jim - 715-581-6433