VIRGINIA POIWYIIAQ 481%??? AGRICULTUI-‘f/Ai- FJMNCH LIBRARY BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA ' S i lo Construction Costs and ' S i la go Production Practice; Maw/i I955 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIUN - - - TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSIUN SERVICE College Station, Texas SUMMARY Three types 0f silos were found in common use on farms in the Blackland and Grand Prairie a of Texas. These were the unlined trench, the concrete-lined trench and the upright. The unl" trench was the most numerous of the three. The cost of an unlined trench silo varied, on the average, from $90 for the 100-ton size to $122 one of 200-ton capacity. Trench silos of similar capacity had been lined with concrete at costs ran from $760 to $1,466. The cost of a concrete stave upright silo (100-ton capacity) was approxim $1,400, whereas a 200-ton silo of similar construction cost $2,040. The annual cost of storing silage (depreciation, interest, upkeep and spoilage) in unlined an concrete-lined trenches averaged approximately $1 and $1.40 per ton capacity regardless of size. ‘~ upright silos, the average annual cost per ton of storage ranged from $1.65 for the 100-ton size to $ 1 for those of 200-ton capacity. * - On farms with crops yielding 12 tons of silage per acre, a crew of five men, two tractors and trucks harvested 8 acres per day when filling trench silos. However, a crew of eight men and tractors was required to put a similar yield in an upright silo. With crops yielding only 4 tons of silage per acre, a crew of four men, two trucks and two tra ' averaged putting the production from 11 acres in a trench silo during a 10-hour day. In filling up silos with crops yielding 3.6 tons per acre, a crew of six men and three tractors was required to ha 11 acres per day. The operation of 18 silage field cutters was studied in detail. These were single-row mac ‘ equipped with auxiliary engines and were used to harvest an average of 180 acres annually. The cost of operating the cutter, together with its auxiliary engine, averaged $3.04 per acre. Oper ' costs for a tractor to pull the cutter and wages for the tractor driver amounted to an additional per acre. a a h CONTENTS £1 1a Page a " Summary ................................................................................ .. 2 Description .................................................................. .. . Cost of Construction ................................................. .. Introductwn --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 3 Advantages and Disadvantages ____________________________ TyIgeiolfdsrilos """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" " g Annual Costs for Storing Silage ................................... nme renc " 1 0s ....................................................... .. Description 3 Silage Production Practices """"""""""""""""""""""" " __________ Practices Prior to ". Cost of Construction .................................................... ._ 4 , , < Advantages and Disadvantages’ 4 Harvestlng Practlces _________________________________________ ‘l fl , _ """""""""""""""" " Labor and Power Requirements for Silage Harve Lined Trench S11-os ........................................................... ._ 5 Trench Silos e Description --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 5 Upright snogfjilIjljjlIjIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIlfIiIiIiiiIiiij n Cost of Construction .................................................... .- 5 _ _ _ _ _, a Advantages and Disadvantages ________________________________ __ 6 Speclal Equlpment for Flllmg 8110s ------------------ --1 ------- -- ~. y Upright Silos ..................................................................... .. 6 Acknowledgments ............................................................ .. r3 O1 i 7 n . b‘ ; 1)‘ u ‘ , ;' L’ -.—, . ‘.3 C ,1 =3 i‘ 21. '. CIENT PRODUCTION AND USE OF ROUGHAGE '. _ ,e of the keys to greater profits on many ' is farms. Particularly is this true among farmers. Good grazing is the best and dilly the cheapest roughage. When good pas- Age is not available, silage is the best succulent ltitute. Recently the trend has been to increase tly the use of silage on Texas farms, especially y, . airy farms. s i l i fit [.2 A study was made on 85 farms with silos to g ermine the cost of providing facilities for 'ng silage and the practices and requirements growing and putting up silage. These farms , in the Blackland and Grand Prairie areas t " mfg in Denton, Cooke, Collin, McLennan, _. si ue, Bell and Fayette counties (Figure 1). TYPES OF SILOS STUDIED yfTexas farmers have used several types of i gibut only three were found in common use farms studied. These were the unlined “h, the concrete-lined trench and the upright ‘ Of the three, the unlined trench predomi- o“ Unlined Trench Silos ti ~ ‘pfivn 1_ Unlined trench silos are made by excavating -.: trench on a slope or on an area higher than ” e surrounding lots or fields. The lower end of e trench is left open for drainage. Excavating itsdone with a dragline or bulldozer, most usually latter. Best results were reported Where the 1 lo was wider at the top than at the bottom, with sides smoothed to a gradual slope from top to m. Some farmers smooth the Walls by hand a shovel after the bulldozer finishes. This silo is dug either completely below ground ~ or the dirt that is removed is used to raise ,1 bar ..s on each side of the trench. In localities where the water table is high the land is flat, two levies of dirt can be ded aid silage stored between. This is erred to an “upside-down” trench silo. Only A of the cooperating farmers had a silo of this Per-farm capacity for storing silage tended i ivary with livestock numbers. On the average, _ ers with unlined trench silos had capacity to * re 5 tons of silage per animal unit maintained. 's compares with storage capacity of approxi- tely 3 tons per animal unit on farms with ‘fier upright or lined trench installations. Most gthe unlined trench silos studied were less than 1'10 Conrtruction Cort; and Jilage Production Practice; A. C. MAGEE, Associate Professor Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology SOO-ton capacity and there were two of less than 100-ton size. At the same time data were obtained for 11 unlined trenches of more than 400-ton capacity including one calculated to hold more than 1,700 tons. Although there was considerable variation in width and depth of the silos studied, most of the variation in capacity was due to differences in length. A typical silo was 8 feet wide at the bottom, 12 feet wide at the top and 8 feet deep. In building a trench silo, it is important that the cross section of the trench be proportionate to the size of the herd to be fed. The width and depth should be such that the right amount will be fed daily to prevent spoilage while feeding. The bottom should be planned wide enough to accommodate the use of both the earth-moving machinery and the equipment used in packing. The amount of silage that can be stored in a particular size trench depends on the kind and OKLAHOMA )8 ARCHER m‘ vouuc JACK rou later-Maul "w PINTO A. wmfjg mum. i e LOUISIANA Guns,‘ aumco/\ ms an I £~ON+/,k\AYS ‘I UKUINI g. /- ; .. ---J FRIO IQ A SILL! L MULLER Figure 1. The heavy black lines show the approximate boundaries of the Texas Blackland and Grand Prairie areas. The shaded parts indicate the counties in which the study was made. Area delineation adapted from Texas Agricul- tural Experiment Station Bulletin 544, “A Description of the Agriculture and Type-of-farming Area-s in Texas." 3 Figure 2. An unlined trench silo is economical to build and easily and cheaply filled. Select a well-drained site for a trench silo and assure good drainage by sloping the floor from 3 to 6 inches per 100 feet in length. (Photograph fur- nished by Texas Agricultural Extension Service.) condition of the crop used for silage, the amount of grain, the fineness of the cut, the amount of moisture present and how well the silage was packed at filling time. The capacity of the trench silos in the study was calculated on the basis of a cubic foot of silage weighing 40 pounds or 5O cubic feet per ton. Cost of Construction Excavating is the major construction cost for an unlined trench silo. In about 85 percent of the cases studied, a bulldozer was used for excavating. With few exceptions, farmers paid between $8 and $10 per hour for bulldozer work. Except for the larger excavations, 6 to 10 hours of bulldozer work were sufficient to dig most silos. Excavating costs for trench silos ranged from 25 cents to $1 per ton of storage capacity. Most of this variation was due to differences in soil condition. However, bulldozer operators tended to move more dirt per hour in excavating for a large trench than in making one of relatively small capacity. On individual farms, stoniness, dryness and topography had much more effect on excavating costs than did the size of the silo. A summary of costs for three common sizes of cunlined trench silos is shown in Table 1. Excavating costs for 100-ton, 150-ton and 200-ton capacity trenches were 65 cents, 50 cents and 4O cents, respectively, per ton of silage storage capa- city. Most trench silos were located in a pasture area and were fenced to keep out livestock. Al- TABLE l. SUMMARY COSTS FOR THREE SIZES OF UN- LINED TRENCH SILOS o Capacity of silo Item 100 tons 150 tons 200 tons I Dollars i Dollars Dollars Excavating " 65.00 75.00 80.00 Fence enclosing silo 25.00 34.00 42.00 Total cost 90.00 109.00 122.00 Per ton capacity .90 .73 .61 4 J though some farmers used woven wire, tr silos usually were enclosed with 4 barbed p on cedar posts. Cost of this kind of fen, ranged from $25 for the 100-ton silo to $42,: a silo of greater length and with 200-ton capa‘ For an investment of $90, Blackland _ Grand Prairie farmers provided storage for , tons of silage in unlined trenches. On the aver, the per-ton cost of this type storage decre some as the size of silo was increased. investing only about $125 (Table 1), other fa‘ ers provided storage for 200 tons of silage = cost of 61 cents per ton capacity. . It has been recommended (Extension Bull 186) that Texas dairymen provide at least 3 a of silage for each cow in the herd. Farmer the Blackland and Grand Prairie areas constructed sufficient storage in trenches at c averaging $1.80 to $2.70 per cow. a In this part of the State, the unlined trek will provide silage storage facilities at a m lower construction cost than either lined trenc or upright silos. For comparisons see Ta 2 and 3. Advantages and Disadvantages The unlined trench silo has the advantag cheap construction and offers many opportun for labor saving in filling. With field harves cutting, hauling and unloading was mechan and trench silos were easily and cheaply f' without use of a blower. Packing, which of the most important operations in the of good silage, was effectively and econo a done by running a tractor over the chi material. A relatively small crew was requ for filling trench silos. This is particul important when labor is scarce, as is usually case during harvest. Also there were opport ties to save labor when feeding from trench s By using tractor-mounted equipment, silage loaded rapidly and economically into a truc trailer. In one case where the silo was nears feed lot, silage was taken from the trench to» feed bunks by a tractor scoop. _‘ The amount of spoilage with trench _ differed considerably from farm to farm i even varied from year to year on the same f, As a rule, farmers with experience in ma silage had less spoilage than those ‘who put silage for the first time. Loss from spfo usually was closely associated with the thoro I ness with which silage was packed while filo With reasonable care, spoilage did not exce percent in the trench silos studied and in d 1 cases was even less. The surface area of a a was much greater than that of an upright Consequently, between the two types, su ' spoilage was greater for the trench. L Even when well drained, silos with dirt fl tended to become muddy and were hard to ge and out of during rainy weather. For this real some farmers covered the silo floor with a =f 1 of gravel. ‘ ~ I 1 mrwmsvqrzarremaw ..‘ ‘l I The life of an unlined trench silo depends, a large extent, on the type of soil in which it ocated. In some areas of the State, the soil es are such that dirt walls hold for several yrs with relatively little caving or sloughing Under these conditions, unlined trench silos eriorated slowly and there was little upkeep. I one of the cooperating farms, silage had been ‘red in an unlined trench each year for 12 years d the silo was still in excellent condition. How- er, with other soil conditions, it was noted that e Walls had caved badly after only 1 or 2 years’ be. Here the life of an unlined trench silo was latively short. Farmer-experience indicated an lined trench silo can be used for an average 5 years or longer in the parts of the State cluded in the study. f The precautions which need be considered in ; ilding a trench silo are discussed in Extension ircular 328. Briefly, the location should be on a ell-drained site and drainage water from slopes g: should be diverted from the silo. Do not lect a site where this cannot be done. In most “ 'rts of the State, it is necessary to have suffi- slope of the site to permit ample drainage p!» the open end of the trench. Good drainage loughout the entire length of the silo is nec- ry to eliminate as much mud as possible when f-l from an unlined trench. j A convenient location and approaches and i: which permit silage removal in all kinds . jweather are important. Q4! ED655025 i . @ChD"U' Lined Trench Silos p Concrete was common material used in lining trench 0s on the farms studied. However, in a few ‘es the walls had been lined with concrete l a ks or similar materials. Farmers reported ” étisfactory experience with both methods of tifsjnstruction. Some of the trench silos on the farms studied jiere lined when built. Others had been used a son or more without lining. Farmers who, use of soils that cave or slough off easily, had “erienced difficulties in maintaining unlined solved their problem by concreting the pjgio and walls to make an excellent type of There were a few trench silos pith concrete floor and dirt walls. It was not lfcommon for the floor to be concreted »one year ” the walls to be lined later. In this way, con- . f ction costs were spread over aperiod of 2 or ére years. t of Construction A ‘summary of the materials required and the jstruction costs for three sizes of lined trench Jlflfw (100, 150 and 200-ton capacity) are shown ITable 2. These data are for a silo s8 feet deep, ileet wide at the bottom, 12 feet wide at the top p-kl LIJ Figure 3. Trench silos lined with concrete are perma- nent and have proved satisfactory over a period of years for Texas conditions. Here the silo is equipped for self-feeding as a means of saving labor. (Photograph furnished by Texas Agricultural Extension Service.) and with uniformly sloping sides. With these dimensions, a silo must be approximately 60 feet long to hold 100 tons and approximately 95 feet long _to hold 150 tons. To store 200 tons of silage requires a trench of the same depth and width and 125 feet in length. The costs for both excavating and fencing to enclose the siloare the same for a lined as for an unlined trench of similar capacity. I As shown in Table 2, the amounts of mate- rials required for lined trench silos are for a 6-inch concrete floorrand 5-inch concrete walls, reinforced by welded wire and by half-inch steel rods spaced 10 inches apart. For the walls, the concrete mix used in making these calculations was 1 sack of cement to 2.25 cubic feet of sand and 3 cubic feet of gravel. In figuring for the construction of the floor, a mix of 1 sack of cement to 2.5 cubic feet of sand and 4 cubic feet of gravel was used. The usual practice in constructing a silo of this type was to pour the floor first. In some cases the trench wall was poured in sections with forms built in panels for ease in handling. Some- times one wall was built at a time to reduce the amount of lumber required for forms and to reduce cost proportionately. In other cases, forms were built for a single continuous pour. The number of board feet required for form materials, as shown in Table 2, was based on the continuous- pour method. The purchase price of new lumber used in constructing forms for concrete ranged from $216 for the 100-ton to $396 for the 200-ton capacity silo. In most cases, farmers had to buy new materials and thus incurred similar expense in the construction of silos of this type. However, since most of the lumber used as forms was later re-used for other purposes about the farm, only 30 percent of the cost new was charged to silo construction. TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF MATERIALS AND COSTS FOR THREE SIZES OF LINED TRENCH SILOS Capacity of silo A Item Unit 100 tons 150 tons 200 tons Amount I Cost Amount I Cost Amount I Dollars Dollars Excavating i —— 65.00 —— 75.00 i Cement Sack 163 179.30 246 270.60 330 Sand Yard l4 56.00 20 80.00 28 Gravel Yard 18 54.00 28 84.00 37 Reiniorcing: No. 6. 6 x 6" Foot 1,740 95.70 2.635 144.92 3,535 welded wire 1/3" steel bars Lbs. 368 36.80 565 56.50 750 Labor: Forming and steel placing Hrs. 176 105.60 254 152.40 352 Pouring Hrs. 130 78.00 197 118.20 265 , Form materials Bd. it. 2.400 64.80‘ 3.500 94.50‘ 4.400 I Fence enclosing silo >- i 25.00 i 34.00 —— . i; ; Total Cost i- —— 760.20 —-— 1,110.12 —— 1,466.42 Per ton capacity —— -— 7.60 7.40 7.33 a ll ‘ Cost of materials used in building forms figured on the basis that 70 percent of the value oi such materials was salvaged other uses. With prices prevailing at the time of the study, the construction costs of providing silage storage in a concrete-lined trench was approxi- mately $7 .50 per ton, regardless of the capacity. The amounts of each kind of material used in construction varied proportionately with storage capacity. It was possible to effect some saving in construction costs by increasing the width and depth of the silo. This is practical only where large herds of beef or dairy cattle are being maintained. On the basis of 3 tons of silage needed per dairy cow, an investment of about $22.50 was required per cow to provide this type of storage. This was several times the investment required with an unlined trench but somewhat less than was required for storage in an upright silo. Advantages and Disadvantages The added cost is the only disadvantage of the lined compared with the unlined trench silo. The lined silo has the advantage of permanency. Most lined trench silos on cooperating farmséwere relatively new. However, those of older construc- tion were requiring little or no upkeep and indicated that when constructed properly, trench silos with concrete walls and floor should be serviceable for many years. Concreting the floor does away with any difficulties of getting in and out because of mud in the bottom of the silo during rainy periods. Other things being equal, spoilage for the lined and unlined trench was about the same. In each case, farmer experience was that about 8 percent of the total feed going into the trench became spoiled prior to feeding. ‘l Several dairymen among the cooperating farmers expressed their intention to concrete unlined trenches and equip them for self-feeding, thus saving the large amount of labor required to get silage into the feed trough. A hard, even floor is required for a self-feeding trench silo. In most soils, the walls also need to be lined. Once the trench was lined, the additional cost to 6 l E install a gate for self-feeding was small. _ different types of silos included in the study, t a lined trench was the only type suited to se I» feeding. ,- Other advantages common to both the lin and unlined trench silo were economy duri filling, ease of packing and opportunities to sap labor in feeding. Tractor-mounted equipment particularly well-suited to loading silage from _l lined trench. , The same precautions for a convenient w. tion that is accessible at all times and for pro slope and drainage apply equally to both the li , and the unlined trench. ' r». w». ‘m. __ Upright Silos Description Data were obtained from 21 farmers own' 29 upright silos. These ranged in capacity fr 68 to 254 tons. The most common dimensi included diameters of 12, 14 and 16 feet YT heights of 40 to 50 feet. Of the 29 uprights,' were constructed of tongue and groove or in locking concrete staves or blocks, 4 were so concrete, 4 were steel structures and 1 was pla ' over metal plaster lathe. I All upright silos were on concrete foun tions. Those of concrete stave or block const tion were plastered inside and were with covering on top. The steel uprights were " _ specially-treated galvanized steel sheets bol together and came equipped with tops. The s concrete silos on the farms studied were structures that had been poured in sectio forms. Cost oi Construction Materials for the concrete stave or s ’ structures were purchased on a contract P: Usually the contract price did not include la and materials for the foundation, labor for er ing the silo, nor labor and materials for plaste ' Cost data shown in Table 3 are for cone‘ stave upright silos of three capacities-IOU, h-‘QD ("Ff5.l—kl—hlnlulil 0|‘ |3=I| |9."."| E d 200-ton. This type of structure and these pacities Were most representative 0f the up- t. hts studied. l There were small farm-to-farm differences in y} contract cost of materials for similar con- ruction and capacity of upright silos. In part, is Was due to differences in dimensions (dia- y feter and height) for silos of similar capacity. I so, freight costs varied, depending on the loca- ' A n of the farm and where the silo was purchased. _¢ cost of contract materials and freight, as own in Table 3, are for silos of dimensions ' 0th diameter and height) common to farms cluded in the study. "Other costs of building an right silo include cement; sand and gravel for e foundation and for plastering the inside Walls; lf-inch steel to reinforce the foundation; and bor furnished by the farmer to lay the founda- “n, erect the silo and plaster the Walls. Silage storage was provided by an upright o 12 feet in diameter and 45 feet high (100-ton opacity) for an investment cost of $14 per ton. p i: was about $6.50 per ton more than the cost ‘ farms using a concrete-lined trench of the e capacity (Table 2) and Was many times 3- cost When unlined trenches were used (Table l. However, in the case of upright silos, con- ' ction costs decreased substantially when ‘ger silos were built. With a 200-ton concrete :ve silo, it was necessary to invest only $10.20 r ton capacity. This was less than 75 percent tithe per-ton cost of the 100-ton size and repre- _| a saving of about $4 in the cost of building rage for a ton of silage. ' Although the larger the upright silo the pier the cost per ton of storage capacity, there “ a practical limit to the possible saving. Most A ers do not Want a silo much taller than 50 p. At the same time, each foot increase in y (‘meter increases greatly the feeding necessary keep silage fresh and to avoid additional spoil- during feeding. Consequently, the size of . v puts a limit on the diameter that is practical. With upright silos, the cost of providing (rage for the minimum silage needs per dairy ranged from $42 in the case of 100-ton acity to $31 with the 200-ton size. i I Wm 9-HT wi/ACDUQQ- QLP Q2752 50¢? Figure 4. The upright silo is one of the best types for a permanent silage program. Upright silos are built of concrete staves, concrete blocks, solid concrete, tile, brick. metal and wood. (Photograph furnished by Texas Agricul- tural Extension Service.) Advantages and Disadvantages Upright silos have the disadvantage of high initial cost. This is particularly noticeable in the case of small-capacity uprights and is also notice- able in comparison With the initial cost of any size of unlined trench silo. Furthermore, special equipment is required for filling an upright silo. Packing (a very important operation in making silage) Was done effectively and cheaply with tractors in the case of trench silos. But farmers with upright silos used large amounts of expensive labor to get silage packed properly. An upright silo is permanent and attractive. This type silo requires only a little space and It i TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF MATERIALS AND COSTS FOR THREE SIZES OF UPRIGHT SILOS >f It U _t Capacity of silo _—_ n1 1d __ em 100 tons 150 tons I 200 tons g " ensions of silo: F 12 14 'ameter eef 16 l] i ight Feet 45 50 5O unts and costs Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost . .. h ‘£22552 stirs; , intract materia s an reig t —— . . —— , . ——- 1,850.00 g1 ment for foundation 6. plaster Sacks 20 22.00 30 33.00 40 44.00 S_ " -in. steel for foundation Feet 1Z0 - 6.00 150 7.50 175 8.75 j d and gravel for foundation ‘ Yards 4 12.00 6 18.00 8 24.00 u‘ o, for plaster Yards 1 5.00 1 5.00 1 5.00 t- labor for foundation Hours a0 18.00 4o 24.00 s0 30.00 g; y i, Erect 6'. plaster Hours 70 _ 42.00 100 60.00 130 78.00 ;g ' cost _ ___ ___ 1,405.00 —— 1,897.50 ——- 2,039.75 0'0 i per ton capacity ——- —— 14.05 1 -—- 12.65 —— 10.20 usually can be located conveniently t0 feed lots and barns. The use of uprights is less affected by adverse weather than is trueiwith trenches, especially unlined trenches with dirt bottoms. Also, a relatively small proportion of the roughage stored is exposed in uprights. When filled and packed properly, there was less spoilage in up- rights than in trench silos. However, to keep spoilage at a low level in uprights, care had to be taken to get a good seal around the doors as well as to pack the top carefully to keep it sealed against the wall while settling. Some farmers reported heavy spoilage in uprights when proper precautions were not taken. With the exception of these occasional heavy losses, spoilage reported by cooperating farmers averaged about 4 percent of the total feed going into upright silos. Some farmers object to the high climb nec- essary to reach the top of an upright silo. Also, all the silage fed from this type silo was forked by hand, whereas several farmers with trench silos loaded silage mechanically at a great saving in labor. ANNUAL COSTS FOR STORING SILAGE After a silo Was completed, the year-to-year costs of maintenance were relatively light. How- ever, there were overhead items such as deprecia- tion and interest on investment to consider. A summary of the annual costs, both out-of-pocket and overhead, associated with storing silage in three types of silo-s, is shown in Table 4. Most trench silos were cleaned out before filling and it was considered good practice to smooth the sides of those with dirt walls. Smooth- ing the walls was done by hand just _prior _to cleaning. Cleaning took only a short time with a tractor blade. Upright silos were cleaned entirely by hand. Some door repair was necessary each year with most uprights. Doors usually had to be replaced at 6 to 8-year intervals. It was common also to use felt paper and heavy paint to improve the seal around the doors. Spoilage losses around the doors were heavy unless special care was taken. For concrete stave or block uprights, an occasional painting of the walls was considered desirable to protect and extend the life of w, plaster. Both the inside and outside walls ‘ metal silos should be painted periodically. ' some cases, trench silos lined with concrete blo were painted occasionally to help maintain a .6’ seal. However, this practice was not followed farmers whose trench silos were lined with pou , concrete. 5 I _ Numerous precautions were taken to red A spoilage but such losses were not avoided enti ._ with the types of silos studied. In this stu spoilage losses were considered as an annual y] associated with having a supply of silage. Calif less management can easily result in much grea spoilage than estimated, which in turn W0 f increase annual costs above the estimates used Table 4. Yearly costs for storing silage in an unli trench amounted to only about $1 per ton cap ity. Here, the low initial cost more than off‘, a relatively high charge for spoilage when li- pared with more expensive type constructi: The investment necessary for concreting a trend“ together with little or no reduction in spoil» resulted in annual costs of about $1.40 per ’ capacity. With both lined and unlined trenc there was little difference in annual per- costs between the 100 and 200-ton size. Howev‘ in the case of concrete stave uprights, there economy in building the larger size structure. - 1 SILAGE PRODUCTION PRACTICES Cooperating farmers reported success making silage from a variety of crops. Corn the crop used most frequently. However, m of the acreage of corn going into silage on 5 farms studied was not planted as a silage c? Because of the drouth, much corn that was 0t A wise a failure was salvaged for silage. F0 I sorghums were second to corn in the acreage i‘ for silage. Sorghums most commonly used cluded Atlas, Honey Drip, Red Top and He‘ Some Sudan went into silage and in the nort counties included in the study, a sizable acr of oats was used. Other crops used for si were J ohnsongrass, clover and grass mixturi TABLE 4. SUMMARY’ OF ANNUAL COST OF STORING SILAGE IN THREE TYPES OF SILOS 100-ton capacity 200-ton capacity A Item Unlined Lined Concrete Unlined Lined Concr trench trench stave upright trench trench stave u ' Initial cost. dollars 90.00 760.20 1.405 122.00 1.466.42 2,039.71, Estimated years of life 51 Z0 20 5‘ 20 20 j Estimated spoilage. percent 8 8 4 8 8 4 l Estimated spoilage. tons 3 3 4 15 16 8 i Annual costs: Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. v Depreciation 14.25 38.01 70.25 18.10 73.32 101. Interest on investment 2.25 19.00 35.12 3.05 36.66 50._ Spoilage at $10 per ton 80.00 80.00 40.00 160.00 160.00 Materials a. labor upkeep rep. 3.50 2.50 20.00 5.00 4.00 It... Total" annual cost 100.00 139.51 165.37 186.15 273.98 257. 1.00 1.40 1.65 .93 1.37 1.. r5] Annual cost per ton capacity ‘Applies to trench only. Liie oi fence estimated at 20 years. TD 1-a._>-|.A._.-1 5P?“ Elifififimr-Jrrflq 025mg K/Jr-I-(QQ rcent was given a third cultivation. p In general, both the 1953 and 1954 crop lsons were relatively dry throughout the area p. died» In many cases, the silage yields were w, reflecting drouth conditions. Yields of silage =1 the farms studied ranged from 2 to 14.2 tons ’- acre. In many cases, the acreage planned f» silage did not yield the desired tonnage. ,_umerous farmers, particularly dairymen, fin- _ hed filling their silos by purchasing corn or , her crops in the field from neighbors. In some stances, field-cut feed was hauled several miles __» this purpose. Practices Prior to Harvest More seed were used with corn planted for _ lage than when planted for grain. For a silage _. op, a seeding rate of 9 to 10 pounds per acre as usual. Sorghum crops for silage were planted q rows and 12 pounds per acre was the usual j ding rate. Seedbed preparation, planting and cultivation ‘ corn was similar whether grown for grain or jage. Likewise, forage sorghums were handled quch the same prior to harvest, whether cut for 3'- or harvested for dry forage. The usual practice for corn or forage sor- t ums was to flatbreak, one-way or disk land _ the fall or early winter prior to bedding. irty-five to 40 percent also was harrowed. _ out two-thirds of the acreage was rebedded or e beds cultivated before planting. After plant- 51 all corn was cultivated twice and about 25 Forage ghums were cultivated twice. When used for ge, neither crop was hoed. ; With two-row tractor equipment, about 3% rs of labor with a tractor were required per e to grow a silage crop to harvest time. Harvesting Practices » Tractor-drawn harvesters were used to chop ‘ge in the field and load the chopped forage into cks or trailers for hauling to the silo. Two j, cks or two tractors and trailers usually could up with the field cutter. However, additional I, cks or trailers were used in cases of high yields f» long hauls. By having as many as three éilers available, and providing the yield was not gvy nor the haul long, it was sometimes possible one man and tractor to do all the hauling ‘m field to silo. i A few farmers kept a man on the truck to , ead and load chopped feed as it came from the l cutter. This was not the. common practice I was most likely to be done when the haul Ween the field and silo was long. a In unloading the chopped feed into a trench , q- the truck or trailer was either driven through * trench, backed into the silo, or was unloaded f; the side of the trench. ‘ If dump trucks were not available, a false fl of wire was used for dumping trucks or 'lers. A satisfactory false floor was made of vy gauge wire about 2 inches narrower than the inside of the bed and long enough to extend 6 inches or so past the rear end. The false floor extended the length of the truck bed and lapped up over the front endgate. Frequently two or three chains, running the length of the heavy gauge wire, were used to add the strength required in unloading. A pullbar of 2-inch pipe or 2 by 4’s doubled and bolted together was satisfactory on the front end of the wire. To unload the feed, a chain or cable was hooked around the pullbar and the other end attached to a tractor. The chopped feed was then rolled back with the tractor. This same tractor was run back and forth over the feed to pack it. When equipped with a blade, this tractor also served as a means of spreading the dumped feed evenly. This, in turn, facilitated thorough and uniform packing. When the tractor at the silo was not equipped with a blade, some farmers kept a man in the trench to spread the dumped feed with a seed fork. Also, when chopped feed came into the silo rapidly, as was likely to be the case with a high forage yield, two men were kept at the silo—one to operate the tractor used for packing and the other to help unload and to help with the spread- ing. A blower was used to elevate chopped feed into upright silos. Chopped material was unloaded from trucks or trailers by rolling the feed off gradually and feeding it into a conveyor leading to the blower. The blower usually was tractor- powered and was equipped to facilitate unloading trailers at a rate in keeping with the capacity of the conveyor. Silage was spread by hand in upright silos and was packed by manpower. Some farmers always added some water in making silage, others seldom did. In general, water was added when needed for satisfactory packing. Cooperating farmers reported having used or observed the experience of neighbors who used dirt, loose hay, chopped hay, baled hay, straw or weeds to cover silage stored in trenches during years past. Some continued the practice of covering silage. However, the most common opinion was that the saving in spoilage did not justify the extra labor necessary to cover and uncover silage stored in either trenches or up- rights. On the other hand, it has been found desirable to cover trench silos when the silage is to remain in storage for a number of years as a feed reserve. Labor and Power Requirements for Silage Harvest Low-yielding crops were harvested with less time and labor per acre than was required to put relatively heavy yields of forage in a silo. This was true for both types of trench silos and for uprights. However, labor and power requirements per ton of silage decreased as yields increased. Trench Silos Other things being equal, the labor and power used for harvesting and filling a trench silo was the same Whether it was lined or unlined. Conse- 9 quently, no effort was made to separate the two in the following discussion. Labor and power requirements for harvesting and putting forage in trench silos are shown in Figure 5. Data are shown for farmers harvesting the highest yields, in contrast with those harvest- ing the lowest yields of silage. For this compari- son, 20 percent of the farms studied were included in each group. All of the silage put up on the farms included in each group was grown by the farmer harvesting it and there were no especially long hauls from the field to the silo as was often true when crops were purchased off the farm for making silage. With crops averaging 12 tons of silage per acre, one man with a tractor and single-row cutter harvested an average of 8 acres in a 10-hour day. In most cases, two trucks were sufficient for hauling to the silo. However, in the case of a long haul or with extremely heavy feed, more trucks were used to keep up with the cutter. By using extra trailers as needed, two men with tractors and trailers could move a heavy yield of cut feed from the field to the silo. It was common practice to keep the field cutter busy and when- ever possible the work for the remainder of the crew was planned with this in mind. At the silo, one man with a tractor was primarily busy with spreading and packing the loose-chopped material. He also used the tractor to unload trailers and trucks that were not self- dumping. Another man was at the silo to help speed up unloading, assist with the spreading and regulate the use of water when water was added. YIELOPERIWRE-TONS I2 men YIELDING CROPS PUT MENIN GREW-NO- 5 IN TRENCH SILO. OPERATIONS "Zfgggfi" MAN CUT IN FIELD HAUL TO SILO SPREAD a PACK MAN 6O T TOTAL ALL OPE RA- RAOTOR 2:6 TIONS PER ACRE. PER TON TRACTORQZ TRUCK 0.2 "E'-°"5R“°RE‘T°"$ 3-9 LOW YIELDING CROPS PUT ‘ m TRENCH su.o. or: RATIONS “AUEFREFER cur m new M" °'° TRACTOR °§ 1//////, HAUL TO SILO SPREAD! PACK TOTAL ALL OPERA- TIONS PER ACRE. PER TON I I 9 l0 E '0"- 2m- >“"" xfl“ E C Figure 5. Labor and power requirements, per acre and by operations, to fill trench silos with high and low-yielding crops. 1953-54. 10 YIELD PER ACRE-TONS I I MEN IN CREW-NO. OPERATIONS HIGH YIELDING CROPS PUT IN UPRIGHT SILO, * 8 HOURS PER ACRE MAN L3 our m FIELD ‘TRAGTORH HAUL T0 SILO BLOW INTO SILO SPREAD 8 PACK TOTAL ALL OPERA- TIONS PER ACRE PER TON YIELD PER ACRE-TONS 3.6 MEN IN CREW-NO. 6 OPERATIONS “XQZEER LOW YIELDING CROPS PUT IN UPRIGHT SILO. M AN 0.9 TRACTOR 0.9 V////4 MAN 0.9 TRACTOR 0.9 MA N l. 8 TRACTOR 0.9 y//% CUT IN FIELD HAUL TO SILO %//4 BLOW INTO SILO SPREAD BPACK MAN LB TOTAL ALL OPERA- MAN 5 TIONS PER ACRE TRACTOR 2 MAN L5 P E R To“ TRACTOR 0.8 .4 -7 ’/////. Figure 6. Labor and power requirements per acre by operations to fill upright silos with high and low-yieldilfi; crops. 1953-54. per acre used 6.4 hours of labor, 2.6 hours i‘ tractor time and 2.6 hours of truck time for e acre stored in a trench silo. Stated differen l a crew of five men, two tractors and two tru put up an acre of silage crop (yielding 12 ton‘ in 11/; hours. On the other hand, with low-yielding averaging about 4 tons of silage per acre, average of 11 acres were harvested per 10-h day with a field cutter. Here again most farm used trucks in hauling to the silo. Two tru v were necessary but were not always busy if haul was short. An alternative practice was to use trail instead of trucks. One man with a tractor ’ three trailers was able to keep up with a one- ,5 cutter in low-yielding forages. When this done, the usual practice was to have two men, the silo to handle the unloading, spreading packing. a _. For crops yielding only about 4 tons of sill per acre or less, a total of 3.6 ho-urs of labor, hour of tractor use and 1.8 hour of truck r was required for each acre of crop stored trench silo. Under these conditions, four j‘ two trucks and two tractors averaged puttingij’ an acre of silage crop in 54 minutes. Howe labor requirements per ton of silage harv if, were much greater for low-yielding than high-yielding crops. " Upright Silos , Labor and power requirements for fi upright silos are shown in Figure 6. Here f requirement data for the farms harvesting highest yields of silage are summarized separa zanh-r For farms with the highest silage yields, approximately 10 hours of labor and 5 hours of tractor work were used per acre of feed going into upright silos. Here a crew of eight men and four tractors put up an acre of silage in 11/4, hours. Under these conditions the labor per w Figure]. A field cutter chops silage in the field and ' i loads the chopped material into a truck. This method per"- mits efficient use of harvesting labor and is preferred where the supply of farm labor is limited. (Photograph furnished by S. B. Swigert.) (from data for those with the lowest silage yields. . both groups, all the silage harvested was grown by the farmer putting it up. With similar yields, farmers harvested about he same acreage per day with a single-row cutter Z egardless of whether the chopped feed was going into a trench or an upright silo. Farmers with pright silos and with feed making 11 tons of ilage per acre averaged cutting 8 acres per 0-hour day (1.1 hour per acre). This was the rate as reported by those with similar ielding crops that were put in trench silos Figure 5). Likewise, farmers cut 11 acres per yay (.9 hour per acre) of low-yielding forage, grrespective of the type of silo being filled. y Farmers with upright silos tended to use railers rather than trucks to haul from the field to the blower. This was true for both groups iproviding data summarized in Figure 2. Those with relatively high yields utilized two tractors and drivers for hauling to the blower. For low-yielding crops, one man with a tractor and three trailers could move the chopped feed to the blower. This practice cut hauling labor with low-yielding crops to less than 1 hour per acre orconsiderably less than half the time used to haul a relatively high yield of forage. Two men were used at the blower regardless of whether chopped feed came in slow or fast. A tractor furnished the power to run the conveyor and the blower. Trucks and trailers were unloaded by dumping or with the aid of false floors or andgates. The blower crew took care of unloading 1nd regulating the flow of chopped feed into the aonveyor, operated the conveyor and blower and :'orked up feed spilled during unloading. Farmers used two or three men in an upright :ilo to spread the feed as it came in, to tramp and >ack and to fit the doors as filling progressed. lVhen silage came in rapidly, as was true with ugh-yielding crops, three men were needed. How- ever, with low-yielding crops, two men usually vere sufficient in the silo. ton of silage harvested was considerably less than was true with low-yielding crops. All the extra labor required to fill upright silos as compared with trenches was used at the silo. With forage yielding an average of 12 tons of silage per acre, only 2.5 hours of man labor were used to get the material unloaded and to spread and pack it in a trench silo (Figure 5). But 6.5 hours of labor were needed to get about the same weight of silage elevated, spread and packed in an upright silo. When upright silos were filled with crops yielding an average of 3.6 tons per acre, a crew of six men and three tractors put up an average, of only 4 tons of silage per hour. SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR FILLING SILOS Regardless of silo type, a field cutter and two trucks or two or three specially-equipped trailers were needed to harvest silage crops. For filling upright silos, a blower equipped with a conveyor also was necessary. Two to four farm tractors completed the list of essential equipment. Approximately one in three farmers making silage owned a field cutter. Those without field harvesting equipment contracted their cutting. Field cutting was done by the acre, by the hour or occasionally was charged for by the ton. Cus- tom rates varied greatly from one comm unity to another and ranged from $4 t0 $1 D per acre when cut by the acre and $5 to $7.50 per hour when cut by the hour. These prices included a tractor to pull the cutter and a man to run each. In communities where cutters were numerous, rates tended to be lower than in communities with relatively few cutters. TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL COSTS OF OPERAT- ING SILAGE FIELD CUTTERS, 1953-54 Item l Per farm Number of farms studied 18 Cost of cutter new $2.197 Estimated life-years 8 Acres cut per year 180 Hours worked per year 190 Amount Value Fuel: (auxiliary engine) Dollars Gasoline—gallons 456 104.88 Oil—gallons 9 10.80 Other costs: Repairs (cutter and auxiliary engine) xx 103.00 Depreciation 274.62 Interest 54.62 Total all costs (cutter and engine) 547.92 Cost per acre cut 3.04 Cost per acre, tractor use .98‘ Cost per acre. tractor driver .63 Total per-acre costs. field harvesting xx 4.65 ‘Data furnished by Willie L. Ulich, agricultural engineer, Texas Agricultural Extension Service. ll Some farmers purchased field cutters with the idea of doing custom work. Others did field cutting for neighbors in exchange for help with their own silo filling. Of 42 cutters, only five were equipped to handle broadcast feed. All others were single- row machines. Most of the machines were equip- ped with auxiliary motors, but a few operated by means of power take-off from the tractor. Of the special equipment used in silo filling, the field cutter was the most expensive to buy and also to operate. Detailed information was ob- tained from 18 farmers as to the costs associated with owning and operating field cutters. A summary of these data is shown in Table 5. All of the cutters for which data were included in this summary were equipped with auxiliary engines. There was considerable variation in the purchase price of various brands of cutters. Among the farms studied, $2,500 was the top price paid. The life of a cutter depends largely on its use. On the farms studied, cutters were expected to last an average of 8 years and cut an average of 180 acres annually. Fuel consumption (for the auxiliary engine only) averaged 2.4 gallons per hour of operation. The amount of oil used varied considerably, but averaged approximately 2 quarts per day of operation, including the oil changes. The greater the use the greater the repair costs, but in most cases relatively high repair costs were reported. The cost of operating the field cutter, to- gether with its auxiliary engine, averaged $3.04 per acre. Other cost items incurred when silage was cut in the field were for the tractor used to pull the cutter and the tractor driver. The cost of operating the tractor was calculated to be 98 cents per acre. Rates paid tractor drivers varied, but at 60 cents per hour this cost amounted to 63 cents per acre. Dump trucks used forhauling usually were hired since most farmers did not own this type of equipment. A common charge for dump trucks to haul chopped feed from the field to the silo was $2.50 per hour for the truck and the driver. Self-dumping trucks worked particularly well in trench silos. Regular farm trucks also were satisfactory when fitted with a false wire bottom for unloading with the aid of a tractor. Most trailers used in filling trench silos had false wire bottoms and a back endgate or side that dropped to facilitate unloading. Most any farm trailer otherwise suitable could be used with minor adjustments without hampering its use f other farm hauling. l For filling upright silos, trailers with .6 able front endgates, used to push the load outt back, Worked well in unloading the chopped f‘ into the hopper of the conveyor. A kit containi the items needed to equip a trailer for this purp cost $65 to $75. Farmers reported this equipme would last about 8 years with annual repai were needed when no trucks were used. Fe, amounting to $4 or $5. Three trailers usual farmers owned this many. ' It often was a problem to get both tracto i and trailers to fill silos. Tractors not owned b the operator were furnished by neighbors, eithe on an exchange basis or on a custom-rate basi Frequently, neighbors pooled their equipment an ' worked together during silo filling. Three or f0‘ j farmers working together and each contributi a tractor, a driver and a trailer (or a truck inst : , of a tractor and trailer) provided the necessa a equipment. j? A new blower, complete, to use with an u right silo cost $650 to $700 and would last abo 10 years. Repairs on a blower, including convey, and pipes, averaged approximately $10 annua 5 Less than half of those with upright silos own, blowers. When rented, the customary charge g the use of the blower was 25 cents per ton a silage. a ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author acknowledges the assistance. Joe R. Campbell, formerly associate profes Department of Agricultural Economics and I ciology, Texas Agricultural Experiment Stati who helped plan the study, took many of A schedules and contributed to the analysis. W. S. Allen, agricultural engineer, Agricultural Extension Service, gave valua help and advice in preparing the summary. materials used in silo construction. Appreciation also is expressed to the c0 agents and other Texas Agricultural Exten Service personnel who were helpful in plann and getting the study under way. A Margaret Machos and Doris Stanek, memi of the clerical staff, rendered valuable assista in the tabulation of the data and in the p aration of the manuscript. _ This study was made possible by the coop tion of the many farmers who furnished 1 information reported. ~ Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, R. D. Lewis, Director, College Station, Texas