LIBRARY OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
WO.N CIRCULATING
CHECK FOR UNBOUND
CIRCULATING CORY
; UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
Agricultural Experiment Station
BULLETIN No. 332
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
BY E. W. LEHMANN AND F. C. KINGSLEY
URBANA, ILLINOIS, JUNE, 1929
CONTENTS
PAGE
FOREWORD 375
THE TEST FARMS 378
CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL LINE 385
ENERGY CONSUMPTION ON EACH FARM 389
SCOPE OF EQUIPMENT STUDIES 400
HOUSEHOLD USES OF ELECTRICITY 401
USES OF ELECTRICITY IN FARM PRODUCTION 429
BIGGEST PROBLEM IS TO DEVELOP A "PAY" LOAD 466
ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF FARM RATES 469
APPENDIX 471
SUMMARY.. . 478
FOREWORD
Farmers will be slow to install electrical equipment and pay for
electric energy unless it can be demonstrated that by so doing they
can actually save money or that the conveniences and comforts made
possible by electricity fully justify the necessary expenditures.
The power companies and even the manufacturers of electrical
appliances and equipment may be obliged to market their products
at prices which for a time may mean a loss, in order to develop a
sufficient volume of business to bring them a reasonable return.
It would be of mutual advantage to all concerned if such rates
and policies for supplying electric service were formulated that, in a
reasonably short time, an increase in the use of energy and electrical
equipment would lower the prices so that farmers could afford to buy
and power companies afford to sell.
The Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station recognizing these facts
undertook this study and, in line with the policy of the Station, an
advisory committee was selected to assist in the investigation. Thru
the work of this committee the project on the use of electricity in agri-
culture was outlined. Funds for carrying out the project were pro-
vided by the Illinois State Electric Association. The members of
the committee were as follows:
H. W- Mumford, Dean of the College of Agriculture, University
of Illinois, (chairman)
E. W. Lehmann, Professor of Farm Mechanics, University of Illi-
nois, (secretary)
H. C. M. Case, Professor of Farm Organization and Management,
University of Illinois
J. Paul Clayton, Vice-President, Central Illinois Public Service
Company, Springfield, Illinois
Lloyd Yost, Fairbanks-Morse & Company, Beloit, Wisconsin
Bert H. Peck, Illinois Power & Light Corporation, St. Louis,
Missouri
H. E. Worden, Central Illinois Light Company, Peoria, Illinois
Mrs. H. M. Dunlap, farm homemaker, Savoy, Illinois
J. P. Stout, farmer, Chatham, Illinois
H. H. Parke, farmer, Genoa, Illinois
E. A. Eckert, farmer, Mascoutah, Illinois
375
ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINES SUPPLYING CURRENT TO FARMS
AND TOWNS, 1928
There are over 9,000 miles of interconnected high voltage lines now built
in Illinois. About 4,000 miles of these transmission lines are of sufficiently
low voltage so that farmers can obtain current, and the mileage of such lines
ia being increased rapidly. The above map shows how these lines are dis-
tributed over the state. The heavy lines are those from which farmers can
get service by the use of a transformer. The light lines are those with volt-
ages from which it is not practical for farmers to get service.
376
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
BY E. W. LBHMANN AND F. C. KINGSLEY*
High voltage distribution lines now extend to practically every
section of the state of Illinois. It has approximately 9,200 miles
of interconnected lines serving over 1,200 towns and cities. About
4,000 miles of line are of low enough voltage so that farmers may
secure service from them, and many of the high-voltage lines are
so designed that a lower voltage may be strung on the same towers
or poles at a great saving in cost. There are also approximately
1,200 miles of lines built especially for farm service. Thus a net-
work of electric lines offers great possibilities for supplying elec-
tricity to Illinois farms and farm homes.
Another source of electricity for the farm is the unit electric
plant. Such a plant fills a real need where electricity cannot be se-
cured from a power line/ It furnishes adequate energy for lighting, for
household appliances, and for minor power up to one horsepower,
but it is not adequate for larger power operations or for cooking.
The central station plants are much more economical producers of
power where large quantities are involved. It holds true in the country
as well as in the city that the individual who uses sufficient power
so that he can secure service at a reasonable rate from a high-volt-
age line cannot afford to operate a plant of his own. The results
of a study of five unit plants are given in the Appendix on pages
471 to 473.
The problem of supplying power from the central station to the
farm is largely one of delivery costs and of getting the customer
to make sufficient use of the service to pay both him and the com-
pany. Electricity used on farms in the past has been largely for
lighting the home. An electric load of this type does not return a
direct income to the farmer to offset the expense incurred, nor does
it give sufficient return to the utility company to pay for the service.
From surveys made by the University it is apparent that many
farmers who have electric power service are failing to use it for
the numerous operations to which it is easily adapted. The average
energy consumption per farm over the state is very low; on some
lines it was found to be less than 30 kilowatt hours a month. At the
rates charged, this does not bring in sufficient income to the utility
companies to justify them in extending lines to farms and providing
transformers and other equipment needed to make satisfactory service
possible.
J E. W. LBHMANN, Chief in Farm Mechanics; and F. C. KINGSLBT, formerly Assistant in
Farm Mechanics. J. C. BOTTUM, formerly Assistant in Farm Mechanics, assisted with the study
during a part of the period and gave special assistance in the preparation of the farm manage-
ment phase of the manuscript.
377
378 BULLETIN No. 332 [June,
The first study (1923) was based on 93 farm homes in Bureau
county having electric service. While all 93 homes were lighted with
electricity, only 50 percent used electric motors for limited power
operations, including pumping, grain grinding, grain elevating, and
household operations. Gasoline engines were still being used for power
by 27.9 percent and windmills for pumping were used by 53.6 percent.
Service from power lines had been available for one to ten years. A
later survey (1926) covered several thousand Illinois farms. While all
used electricity for lighting, only 75 percent had electric irons, 49
percent electric washers, 28 percent electric vacuum cleaners, 22 per-
cent electrically operated pumps, 12.8 percent toasters, 6.7 percent
fans, 6.4 percent power-driven separators, 5.7 percent electric ranges,
3.0 percent motor-driven milkers, and 1.4 percent electric refriger-
ators. A number of small appliances were being used but they con-
stituted a very small part of the total.
Several factors, therefore, led to the study reported in this bulle-
tin, namely:
1. The desirability of adequate electric service for convenience
and comfort in the farm home.
2. The growing demand for electric service on the part of farm-
ers and the consequent need for reliable information concerning the
practicability of its use on farms.
3. The availability of electric current to Illinois farms.
4. The desire of the utilities companies to find practicable ways
of supplying electric service to farmers.
Character and Organization
Recognizing the principle that the cost per unit of electricity
is dependent upon the number of units used, the first step in this
investigation was to determine whether sufficient use of electricity
could be made on farms to develop a load that would be economical to
the farmer and practicable from the standpoint of the utility company.
An experimental line was built and electric service rendered to ten
farms. In addition to using electricity for household appliances, steps
were taken to electrify all belt-power operations on these ten farms
and to develop new economic uses, so far as possible.
All ten farms were occupied by owners, except one, and the oper-
ator of this farm rented from his father. Farm 9 was occupied by
a retired farmer who rented practically all his land to other farmers
in the community, and No. 6 was occupied by a widow whose land
was rented. Thus in the group of ten there were eight active farmers.
The discussion and data in the tables dealing with the production
side of the farms is based on the eight active farms.
19S9]
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
379
The area farmed by the eight active farmers was from 160 to
515 acres. The four smaller farms, Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 8, averaged
190 acres. The four larger farms, Nos. 1, 5, 7, and 10, averaged 400
acres. While all were essentially grain farms, Nos. 2 and 8, con-
Mined
Livestock
(2)
Beef
and
hogs
General
Farming
(Wheat Corn
FIG. 1. FARMING-TYPE AREAS OF ILLINOIS AND NUMBER
OF FARMS PER SQUARE MILE IN COUNTIES
In east-central Illinois, where the tests reported in this
bulletin were made, there are fewer farms per square mile
than in any other section of the state. Corn and oats are
the major craps.
sisting of 160 acres each, produced considerable poultry. The other
two of the smaller farms, No. 3 with 240 acres and No. 4 with 203
acres, each had a sufficient number of cows to justify the use of an
electric milking machine.
Of the group of larger farms, No. 1, consisting of 280 acres, was
devoted strictly to grain production. No. 5, 320 acres, differed from
380
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
No. 1 in that there was a small income from livestock. No. 7, 480
acres, had a small amount of livestock and specialized in soybeans
and seed corn. No. 10, 515 acres, was a representative grain farm
with only enough livestock to consume roughages.
The average amount of land farmed by the ten cooperators, in-
cluding both owned and rented land, was 295 acres, and the average
value of each farm was $65,444.
These test farms are located in Champaign county, in the level,
fertile, grain-growing section of east-central Illinois, where corn and
oats are the major crops and where the larger portion of these crops
is marketed directly. It is believed, however, that there were as
many representative types of farms on the test line as it would be
possible to find in most localities in Illinois.
TABLE 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR EIGHT FARMS ON
EXPERIMENTAL LINE IN 1926
Items
Average of 4
livestock
farms
Average of 4
grain farms
Average of
8 farms
Total capital investment
$52 452
$100 988
$76 720
Land valuation
42 919
87 969
65 444
Total receipts (net increase)
5 712
9 121
7 417
Receipts from feed and grain
3 180
8 282
5 731
Total expense (net decrease)
1 886
3 397
2 641
Receipts less expense
3 826
5 725
4 775
Labor of operator and unpaid family
Net return on investment
894
2 932
1 306
4 418
1 100
3 675
Rate earned
5.6%
4.4%
4.8%
Except for investment in land, the eight active farms had a total
average investment that was representative of farms in this section
of the state (Table 1). The greater land valuation was due to the
larger acreage of the farms and to their higher value per acre. The
total investment per farm, including land, varied from $42,526 to
$134,282.
The land in these eight farms is practically all tillable. With a
total average area per farm of 295 acres, 249 acres were in crops
(Table 2). The area in corn ranged from 61 acres on the smallest
farm to 226 acres on the largest, averaging 130 acres, or more than
40 percent of the farmed area. Oats, wheat, soybeans, clover, and
hay followed corn in order of importance from the standpoint of
acreage. Soybeans have been replacing oats to some extent in this
locality and have proved a more profitable crop for these fanners
than oats because they have been produced and sold as seed.
1999}
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
381
TABLE 2. ACREAGES OF CROPS GROWN ON EIGHT COOPERATING FARMS, 1926
Cooperator
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
Average
of all
farms
Corn
148
80
93
84
170
175
61
226
130
Oats
72
14
20
8
35
21
136
38
Wheat .
30
20
30
12
30
50
10
74
32
Timothy.
3
10
2
Clover
3
45
18
8
Alfalfa ..
4
10
2
Soybean grain .
17
37
35
28
85
33
29
Soybean hay
3
12
35
7
6
8
Total crop acres . . .
Tillable pasture
250
20
138
16
180
50
152
45
278
30
390
70
150
3
452
36
249
34
Non-tillable pasture. . . .
23
3
Farmstead, etc
10
6
10
6
12
20
7
4
9
Total acres in farm .
280
160
240
203
320
480
160
515
295
Both dairy and beef cattle were kept on these farms. The num-
ber of cows varied from 2 to 12 per farm (Table 3). During the
three years covered by the study the average number of cows per
farm increased. The only representative livestock farm in the group,
TABLE 3. KIND AND NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK ON EIGHT
COOPERATING FARMS, 1926 1
Cooperator
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
Average
per
farm
Work horses
9
8
12
11
14
11
9
15
11
Other horses .
1
7
1
3
15
3
Cows
6
2
7
12
4
8
4
8
6
Other cattle
5
17
15
13
10
7
7
9
Sheep
21
3
Hogs
2
4
3
30
5
9
12
12
10
Poultry
105
239
12
150
163
120
169
137
137
inventory taken April 1, 1926.
in th.e sense that a large proportion of the crops grown on it were
fed, was No. 4. Individual farms may be selected from the group
that are fairly representative of farming in many other sections of
the state. On one the receipts from hogs made up a large share of
the income; on the other seven they ranged from $100 to $500 a
farm. The number of poultry kept per farm varied from 12 to 239.
An increased interest in this enterprise was shown during the period
of the study. On two farms it supplied a considerable part of the
income.
382
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
o
o
O
S >
Bj
a
d - S, j "Sac
"p a
w3 p 1
*^* CH j ^ (^ l2C} "^^ CH -^
43
^
O- ^ ^ F " H O *^ S ^ OH ^
,0
S ^^ ' S ^ N ' S ^^ ^
So fi.S -^
OH
a
a
a
g>
g|
4) 45 45 4) 45 03 4)
d d d^ d _o d^'-'d
o
Q} 03
03 CO *"-j ^g ^
F i **'
ais feafea 458 a - > 45a4>s
^H d 2 it5f-t< t-|COfrHCOt,-ii tnOn
Q~ ^N^^vP /^,4)^\O/~\3 /-\ d d jS d
'bb 'So * 'So 'So ^ 'So
d d d d d
45 45 *T3 M 45 45 "t^ ^ 45
45 45 45
'So 'So 'So
d d d
45 4) 05
O. |>
CO CO d ^ CO CO d ^ CO
CO CO CO
^
03 c3 o345 o3 c3 o3S c3
O O W"c3 O O W^ O
o o d
IH
"^"3 "3 "3 SH --^
45
C3 o ^ 45 -* "K w
llf
f^ f B ? ^g-^ M ^g'
t OC3>'o> t o> -^SS *O > Sd
o "c aT-g ts o
H-d CO
CO *d O CO O CO O O SH ^^ CO O .JH ^
GO O O SH O O f-l
i (i icoC^coi-Hco HHn_iP-( CMco PHU-I
1+3 ffi -^ fe ffi ^
4) 4) 3
Pn.2
CO CO CO >% CO r^
OO QOoO oOoO'CO oO^
CO^t COJn CO. CO.^, CO. ]^ !l CO . ^
1 1 1 O 1 ^T 1 1 CO W> 1 O C
CM rH CN 1-1 CM i-l I-H CO CM I-H o3
co' CQ ^ to "^
K*ld >ido3 t>)d53
il ii' is^
"CO tH "CO ^^ ~n tn'g
CMOO CNOSCiCMOioS
H *
4)
\
1 1
"cS
B
a
O
r^ v C^ CO ^^ *O CO 1 s "
00 OS O
1 1
PH
19S91
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
383
The average return on the total investment for these eight farms
was 4.8 percent in 1926 (Table 1), and for the other two years of
the study a similar return was realized. This rate agrees closely with
that of a much larger group of farms of the same general area and is
nearly 2 percent more than the average farm in this section earned
that year. 1
Preliminary Survey of Equipment and Operation
A complete inventory of all equipment and an analysis of farming
operations were made for each cooperating farm before the electric
TABLE 5. ENERGY USED FOR BELT WORK ON EIGHT COOPERATING FARMS AND
PERCENTAGE OF ENERGY SUPPLIED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, 1926 1
Operations requiring
belt work
Average
energy per
operation
Part of
total
energy
Energy provided by
various sources
Threshing
hp. hrs.
425
70
117
276
168
34
359
217
44
82
84
579
perct.
17 .4
2.9
4.8
11.2
6.9
1.4
14.6
8.8
1.8
3.3
3.3
23.6
perct,
i Steam engine.. . 20 .8
[Gas tractor 22.8
Gas engine,
10 hp 1.4
Shredding
Filling silo
Shelling corn
Grinding feed
Baling straw
Pumping water
Windmills 14.6
Grinding feed and miscellaneous . .
Pumping water
[Electricity 40.8
Cream separating
Washing
Operating water system
100.0
Milking
Operating refrigerator. ....
Total
2 455
100.0
1 AU units of energy were converted into horsepower hours and averaged for the
eight cooperating farms in order to obtain a total of the energy requirements for this
type of work on a representative farm.
power line was built. The finished survey gave a complete picture
of each farm, showing living conditions, how the farm and house-
hold work was done, and the economic status of the farm (Tables
1, 4 and 6). Each job and the equipment available for it were
listed, together with the methods used and the time required to do it.
is shown by studies made by the Department of Farm Organization
and Management. The rate earned is calculated after deducting from the
total net income wages for the operator and his family equivalent to th^ose 9f
hjred
384
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
a
00
rH
"^ * 10 co t> co co o 10 *
^ C^ l"H rH rH rH CN rH
CD D
S 2 03
CD O (H
1926-27
as
^ OO CO b- OS CJ5 CO CD IN OO
5< rH rH rH C^ CO rH
a
, o
3 GO
> l-T O
V
1925-26 2
<
fe I> rtl IO CO CO 00 OO OS 1>
OOCOrH rH-^ (N 00 rH
IN "^ C^l rH rH ^* ^^ C^ ^O CO
tppliances
sformer wa
CO flj GO
M Q ffl
03 g K
PH o'^
00
o o oo co co 01 co
g a> I-H as co o oo co os CM
"0,2
1^
O>
i 1
"^ IO CO t> 00 I> IO IO (M I-H
rH rH rH rH i 1
|
C o
So
gi
Tti CO O CO 00 O CO b- 00
. (N CO * CN IO CO CO IO O
g OO (N CO OOCOrH CO rH
if
03 C3
OS
rH
"** IO Tt< l> l> CO 00 CO TH O
rH I 1 rH rH
s
* .
CO
I
00 CO (N (M 00 (N CO b- IO
. C5COt^-COCOCO< 1 TH OS
g Oi (N O5 00 l> CO * CO CO
03 -4^
?l
(N
OS
rH
^ IO * rH OO O O Tj< OO H3
I 1 rH rH (N OCOrHOSCJ3CO CN1
^ rH ^^ CO ^O rH CO s !
(JQ Q}
Q^ bJO
M >
f-t
02
_fl
O
"? OO OO CO Tt< O3 O rH Tt< 1>
53 oo o co * oo oi co 02 r>
'3 "
3
g_.
SH
a
a,
3
S OOOOCOOOOOIM O5
S~ IO CO 00 O !> Oi IO >O rfl
y "* rH CO
rH
lo'5
03 -^
log
(H
O
i
0)T3"
B,
2
^ CO
ti 'oo ^
o
H CD
rH
*2 o
19X9}
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
385
Stationary gas engines and tractors were quite generally used
in the operations listed in Table 5. Three of the farms had small
unit electric plants before the electric service was obtained from
the power line, the power from these unit plants being used mainly
for lights and for very small motors.
On the basis of this preliminary survey the possibilities of sub-
stituting electric for other types of power in use on the farms were
studied and plans made to use it wherever it seemed practicable.
CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL LINE
Since good electric service was essential to the conduct of the in-
vestigation, the extension line carrying the power to these test farms
was itself in no way an experiment. No expense was spared in its
building to insure first-class service. High-class standard construction
Fid. 2. THE EXPERIMENTAL LINE, SHOWING
CONSTRUCTION AT A CORNER
A well-built line, of standard construction, free from tree inter-
ference and carefully maintained is essential for continuous service.
was used. Thirty-foot Western red cedar poles, with 7-inch top and
%-inch Pentrex treated, were used and were spaced at a maximum of
175 feet. The line was 6600-volt, 3-phase, 3-wire, 60-cycle, and built
of No. 4 bare hard-drawn copper, and the minimum spacing between
wires was 14% inches. It was no doubt better than most rural lines.
The question of character of line has been involved only to a
limited extent in the problem of furnishing electric service to farmers.
It is physically possible to build almost any type or voltage of line.
The cheaper constructions, however, are not necessarily the cheap-
est for the farmers in the long run, for depreciation and mainte-
nance may more than offset the advantage gained with a better stand-
ard of line,
386
BULLJOTN No. 332
[June,
The construction used for the experimental line was of consider-
ably higher standard than necessary. In fact the standards that have
been generally used for rural service have been higher than neces-
sary. This fact has been recognized by the Illinois Commerce Com-
mission, which in its general order No. 115 reduced the standards
it had previously set for rural lines. One public service company
serving a large number of farmers in Illinois has filed with the Com-
mission specifications which take full advantage of the new order.
With the lower height of pole that is permitted and a longer span
construction, the cost of extend-
ing rural lines that have fair
right-of-way conditions is in the
neighborhood of a thousand dol-
lars a mile exclusive of trans-
formers. With an average of
three customers to a mile, trans-
former installation costs would
bring the average mile cost up to
$1,350.
Location and Size of Transformer
The location of the transform-
er is of importance in relation to
the distribution of power about
the farm. On the experimental
line each transformer was placed
reasonably close to the house and
the outbuildings in order to have
it as near the center of load distri-
bution as possible. A master meter
and a switch box were located on
the transformer pole. This posi-
tion is of decided advantage when
service is rendered thru one meter.
The meter should be readily accessible from the ground and yet high
enough so that children cannot reach it.
From 3- to 10-K.V.A. transformers were originally installed on
the experimental line. Three- and 5-K.V.A. transformers were later
substituted for the larger ones. The best size to use depends upon
the total connected load and upon the maximum amount of current
required at any one time. The smallest size which will meet the
requirements of the customer results in the greatest economy in opera-
tion, for the smaller the transformer, the smaller is the core loss.
Table 6 shows the total connected load and the sizes of the
transformers that were ultimately used on the cooperating farms,
FIG. 3. TOTALIZING METER AND
SWITCHBOX IN BOX ON TRANS-
FORMER POLE
It is desirable to place the master
switch and totalizing meter on the
transformer pole for convenience,
economy, and safety in providing ade-
quate service leads to the different
buildings.
1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 387
Wiring the Farmstead and Buildings
An adequate and convenient wiring system, with plenty of out-
lets properly placed for connecting electrical devices, is the first
step toward the satisfactory use of electricity on the farm. Too
much emphasis cannot be placed on the importance of this point.
To get switches and outlets most conveniently placed for service in
the outbuildings as well as in the house require careful thought.
Wiring for both 110- and 220-volt service was provided at each
farm. Power outlets for 220 volts, for connecting a portable 5-horse-
power motor and other smaller motors by plugging in, were pro-
vided at a number of convenient points about each farmstead. One
or more yard lights controlled from at least two points were in-
stalled. In each house floor and wall outlets were provided for con-
necting special lamps, vacuum sweepers, and other appliances. The
wiring plans for the ten farms were developed from floor plans of
the residences and ground plans of the farmstead.
Adequate provision for future connections was made. Too often
consideration of future needs is neglected and when a range or a motor
of several horsepower capacity is purchased, it is found that the en-
trance wires or service drops and the wires leading to the meter are
too small and larger ones must be put in at considerable expense before
the new equipment can be used. The total expense of wiring a house
may be greatly reduced by making the original wiring complete and
of adequate size to take care of future needs. The saving made by
using smaller than No. 6 wire for entrance wires is hardly justified.
Care should also be observed to see that the method of wiring is
standard practice and that it meets the requirements of the National
Board of Fire Underwriters.
Cost of Wiring
The cost of wiring a farmstead depends largely upon local con-
ditions since labor is a big item. To economize by using inexperi-
enced wiremen may prove costly in the end. On the experimental
line an experienced wireman was obtained who allowed the farmers
to help in their spare time in doing certain phases of the work.
The cost of wiring these test farms, including the cost of hired
labor, ranged from $94.66 for a seven-room house, corncrib, poultry
house, and one other small building, to $198.74 for a fourteen-room
house, barn, corncrib, garage, milk house, and one or two other
small buildings. The fixtures cost $79.10 and $191.56 respectively
for these same houses. The average cost per farm for wiring was
$130 and for fixtures $134, a total of $264 per farm with the houses
averaging nine rooms.
The cost per outlet, including wall sockets, outlets for fixtures,
etc., ranged from $2.90 to $4.60 and averaged $3.50. A lighting cluster
was considered as one outlet. The total number of outlets per farm
388
BULLETIN No. 332
1929] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 389
ranged from 21 to 49, averaging 37. For outbuildings the average
number was 10.
The wiring cost of power outlets was not included in the above,
since the experimental work required more outlets than would ordi-
narily be employed and a record of their cost would therefore be
of little practical value.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION ON EACH FARM
The energy consumption on each farm for a period of 32 consecu-
tive months is shown in Figs. 5 and 6, and the total for the ten test
farms for 48 months is shown in Fig. 7.
During the first twelve months all energy except that used on the
lighting circuit was furnished the cooperators without charge. The
equipment was installed on a loan basis. The installation of some of
the equipment used during the first year was purely for experimental
purposes, it being recognized that it was likely to be impractical.
Naturally the use of it during these twelve months made energy con-
sumption high.
With the beginning of the second twelve-month period the farmers
were charged the regular rate for all energy used, and all the equip-
ment that had been installed on the loan basis was either removed
or purchased. A decrease in energy consumption resulted, but the
decrease was due more largely to the removal of equipment than to
a reduction in the use of the equipment that was kept.
From the time the above adjustment was made to the end of the
test, the energy consumption increased on nearly all farms. The in-
crease was especially marked during the spring months of 1928,
when a number of incubators and brooders were bought by the fann-
ers. In every case this equipment was purchased on the initiative of
the cooperators, no effort or inducement being offered by those in
charge of the investigation to lead them to increase their electrical
equipment.
The number of persons in the families of the various coopera-
tors, the size of the farm, the crop acres, the source of income, the
connected load, and the average monthly energy consumption for
each of the cooperating farms are indicated hi Table 6. The effect
of the increase in the connected load in 1927-28 on Farms 2, 4, and
7 is reflected in the increased energy consumption during that year.
The summary of data in Table 6 does not show any relation
between the size or type of farm or the principal source of income
and the amount of electric energy used. Cooperator 2, farming 160
acres, with 40 percent of his income from livestock, used an average
of 251 kilowatt hours each month in 1927-28 and Cooperator 8, also
farming 160 acres, with 39 percent of his income from livestock,
used an average of 58 kilowatt hours a month in 1927-28.
390
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
1929]
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
391
II
Q
OQ -^
II
O
O
a .9
< d
fl
H O
s
392
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
o *>
< S -S
s *
o 3 d
fc >
- .
o P. b
to i;
^ 01 ^
a J
H *> ft
2 fl-^
w .3 a
'
0)
a
03 >-.
~o3
a xi
o 73
oo
"H S
fl *'
I!
0)
19991
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
393
It will be noted that the four smaller farms received 35 to 56 per-
cent of their income from livestock, while the four larger farms re-
ceived 6 to 11 percent of their income from livestock.
Kinds and Amounts for Different Types of Work
The energy used for all operations on the cooperating farms was
derived from horses, gasoline, steam power, windmills, and electricity
(Table 7) . All the farms used horses, 7 used steam power and wind-
mills, and 4 used gasoline engines, tractors, or trucks. Horses and
tractors were complementary sources of energy for the drawbar work.
TABLE 7. ENERGY SUPPLIED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES FOR DRAWBAR AND
BELT WORK ON EIGHT COOPERATING FARMS, 1925-26
Source of energy
Average
time used
per farm
Conversion
unit
Total
converted
units
Percentage
of total
units
Horse
hrs.
8 799
1
hp. hrs.
8 799
perct.
67.3
Motor truck (8 hp.)
90.5
8
724
5.5
Tractor, drawbar 1
184.5
6 53
1 204
9.2
Tractor, belt (30 hp.)
17.3
30
519
4.0
Gas engine (10 hp.)
3.4
10
34
.3
Steam engine (25 hp.)
Windmill (1 hp )
19.8
359
25
1
495
359
3.8
2.7
Electricity
701.4 s
1.34
940
7.2
Total..
13 074
100.0
Conversion unit used for drawbar work was determined on the basis of accom-
plishment. 2 Electricity expressed in kilowatt hours.
On these farms, as on all farms, two types of power were needed
that for drawbar and that for belt work. The drawbar work made
up by far the larger energy requirement, averaging 82 percent of
the total energy used (Table 8).
TABLE 8. ENERGY USED IN DRAWBAR AND BELT WORK ON EIGHT COOPERATING
FARMS AND ON A GRAIN AND LIVESTOCK FARM, 1925-26
Type of power
Horsepower hours 1
Percentage of total
Average
of 8
farms
Grain
farm
280
acres
Live-
stock
farm
203
acres
Average
of 8
farms
Grain
farm
280
acres
Live-
stock
farm
203
acres
Drawbar
10 729
2 343
8 530
1 562
7 845
2 285
82
18
85
15
100
77
23
Belt
Total
13 072
10 092
10 130
100
100
x The various units of power consumed in both types of work were converted into
horsepower hours in order to obtain comparable totals for them.
394
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
I
N
N
D
Energy required
Average
per month
E
-" O51OO O!O5 TtiTjiO(M (N
-C t^ O CO t^ O iO iO O rt< O5 (M CO IM CO
* CO CO i-l CO (M CO CO -< CO 00
^ i 1 i-H C^
49
'3
3
1
fe ^ .IOOCOO5O5
<3 -* CO O2 i> I> I-H IO (N CO
Present uses
Lights and household equipment
"Rpfriorprn.t,nr .
c
1
'1
!ii
5 horsepower portable motor
Tnfnl
. ."g d^.
! I IslfUl 1
< f2Sn X2"O M A^fe H
~ Sf ^ Orr-l ^3 5 0>
Si |2^cJ^
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
395
iverage
sr month
i ..,.. B
1
pi
3
o
(2
ID
t ^< lO ^D '^ CO
^ OO W CO^O O5
1
T-i
s
E
1
1
i i
* iiijl
8.9 if fa
p, .:* qj Q)
2^S^?
BLE 9. (Concluded)
i
|
g
cr> oo
^^
-O fl fl
t- :i o o
_^2S
^ p3 %t !d
6C '3^-2
.S .9-9
<
H
i
.2 1 a
'O 3 d fl
S O o>
l-> O O O
o co 10 >o
fe >
u 42.^
> ^3
** -2
"c
"c
1
~2 g >^ I
^| o +5-S E-
3
3 2
i O
<5
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
a
H
E
a
Q O
H H
CM <)
O C5
H W
W
1
H"
i
S
5
h
-u
1
i
fl 03 K
43 n s c
^
O w 3 3 3 3 jj
Jj
-Jj ^i- - t- t- g
I.sSS
fcn &i fl^
S.'-i (M ^ CO CO a
CO O 1-1 (N t*
o S-*
r-<(M IM "*
i-H ICO!
T3 '
g^ a
1
4^4^
Sbl'c
bO
(3 d
o o
> bd
73-2^
13
e
i
i
111
i
:
hi tn
n
42.2
i
. . ; . -^ g >>
ti C (3
l
- t i
'i
i
i
i
Si,
*
i
all farm
household
f rookine-.
rs-s
T3-2
O M
65 T3
73 e
S *
i '. ' ~g43 ^>
: c g : o ^ S $
H Q) O ' *O *O *O
O t/3 CQ 73 SO ^-H
g 1 Mtt
| 11
1
1
i
u u c
00+;
c
3*1
bfl
a 1
2t3
IJ
11
ow
gj'o IH 3 3 3 3
i 11
5
fe 1 1 T-
49
(3
5
s
tn
a
1
'3
cr
a>
a
V
42
(U ^
43
-2
1
*
^
43 S C
:
resent uses
Lights and hou
Ran ere. . .
5-horsepower p
Deeo-well oum
1
3
o
,fr
^ -2
O 03 *
2 .2 fc o
11 hill 11
fl!* 3 ! s,h
lil'sll ?
^ i (_ 35 O43 W
HMUH P4
bb S
" 5 -88
" fe *"
59 ** o
~- >'*- 1
" o ^ ^-
la ll
-i-
^
>
3
a
c
O
OH
b
a.
19291
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
Steam power, windmills, and electricity were used for the belt
work, which represented only 18 percent of the total work done on
the farm. In its present stage of application, electricity may be
seriously considered only for stationary or belt work in addition
to its lighting and heating uses, which are not considered under
this heading.
There is more belt work to be done on a livestock or dairy farm
than on a grain farm. On a representative livestock farm belt work
made up 23 percent of the total power demand, as compared to 15
K.W.
I I Pofonffaf Load
"E13 D*pw*rrpump
E 3 front Bolar
t^ Lnsilaij* Cutter
Threshing
Aver
Nov. Dec. Jan. Fb Mar- Apr. Ma<{ Juna Julu Aua Sept'- Oct.
J9Z6I I9Z7
FIG. 8. PRESENT, UNDEVELOPED, AND POTENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION
ON A 203-AcRE DAIRY FARM
This farm, owned by Cooperator 4, is typical of the grain and dairy
farms in this section. Several items of equipment listed under "undevel-
oped," including a range, incubator, and brooder, were purchased and put
into use in 1928.
percent on a representative grain farm. However, on the eight farms
studied, the belt-power requirements on the four large farms were
considerably higher than those of the livestock farms of smaller acre-
age. This was due to the total power requirements on these farms
being greater.
Studies were made to learn what operations required belt power
and how many horsepower hours of energy were used for each opera-
tion (Table 5). The largest amounts of energy were used for re-
frigeration, threshing, pumping water, grinding feed, and shelling corn.
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
Other belt operations, such as milking, washing, and cream separat-
ing, while consuming small amounts of energy, require it regularly
thruout the year; hence a convenient source of energy is of particular
advantage for them.
Just because electricity is a very convenient source of power on
livestock, dairy, and poultry farms, where a large share of the labor
of the farm is absorbed about the farmstead, it is not to be expected
CU Potantfa/ /ooef
Kw.
Hrs.
Nov. Dc. Jon. fab. Mar Apr. Mau June Julu Auq. ,3pt. Oct. Av.
I9Z6 I9Z7
FIG. 9. ESTIMATED POSSIBLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION ON
A 320-AcRE GRAIN FARM
This farm, owned by Cooperator 5, was typical of the grain farms of
the area. Eighty-nine percent of the income was from grain. The total
possible use of electric power is not quite so great as on the smaller dairy
farm.
that every farmer who gets electric service should change to those
types of farming. On the contrary, it is essential that where elec-
tricity is available its use be adapted to the system of farming prac-
ticed in the section, and to the needs of the particular farm.
Potential Electrical Load for Two Representative Farms
As stated previously, the unit cost of supplying the farm with
electricity depends upon the amount of use that is made of it. In
Tables 9 and 10 and Figs. 8 and 9 an attempt is therefore made to
show what maximum use could be made of electric energy on the
farm of Cooperator 4, a representative dairy farm in the grain-pro-
ducing area of Illinois, and on the farm of Cooperator 5, a repre-
sentative grain farm, if used for all the operations for which it has
proved practical.
1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 399
The power requirements are divided into three groups; first, the
load for which electricity was being used and for which the farmer was
paying; second, the undeveloped load, or the amount of energy that
would be required for those operations that were being performed by
some other source of energy; and third, the potential load, or the re-
quirement for those operations and practices not performed on the farm
but which might profitably be performed and for which electricity
has proved practical. A record of all the operations performed over
a period of one year was used as the basis for calculating the total
amount of electricity that would be required for the different uses
described. The energy requirements for the different operations were
calculated by using data obtained at this and other experiment
stations.
Besides showing that both types of farms were using considerable
electric power, these charts indicate, contrary to the usual belief,
that there is practically as large a potential use for electricity on
Illinois grain farms as on dairy farms. The load per mile of line,
however, would be larger in a dairy area in Illinois than in a grain
area because the average dairy farm is smaller than the average
grain farm and there would be more of them to a given area.
Power and Labor Saved on Test Farms
To adopt electricity successfully as a source of power for farm
operations, either the labor used should be made more productive
or the new power must cost less than the power formerly used. The
fact that labor and power make up from 50 to 70 percent of the
total operating cost involved in crop production suggests the im-
portance of any plan for their more effective use.
Thru the cooperation of the Department of Farm Organization
and Management detailed labor and financial records were kept on
eight of the ten cooperating farms from the beginning to the end of
the study. These records were compared with those of another group
of six farms which did not have service from a central power station.
These six farms were chosen because they were the only farms in
the area on which records similar to those on the cooperating farms
were kept during the entire three years.
It is interesting to note that approximately 50 percent of the
farm labor (Table 11) was performed on or about the farmstead
in caring for livestock, repairing machinery, improving buildings, and
grinding and hauling feeds for stock. A much smaller share of the
total labor on a farm is used in the field in the production of crops
and in hauling them to market than is often supposed. With farms
having more livestock to the acre, the percentage of labor spent
around the farmstead would be even larger.
While the records of the eight cooperating farms indicate a de-
crease each year in the proportion of time spent in performing tasks
400
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
about the farmstead, the larger part of the reduction seems to have
been due to such general conditions as failure to make any major
repairs on buildings during this period, for a similar decrease oc-
curred on the six farms not having central power service. It seems
probable, however, that part of the decrease between the first and
second years resulted from the use of electricity in farm operations
the second year. In the case of certain individual operations it is
clear that electricity would materially lessen the man labor required.
This is particularly true of the milking operation, and also of feed
grinding when an electric motor replaces a tractor.
TABLE 11. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FARM LABOR THAT WAS PERFORMED ON OR
ABOUT THE FARMSTEAD ON EIGHT COOPERATING FARMS AND AVERAGE
FOR Six OTHER FARMS
Cooperator
1925
1926
1927
1. .
perct.
51
perct.
47
perct.
49
2
52
50
53
3
61
53
51
4
66
60
60
5
53
51
49
7
53
45
46
8
58
56
45
10
52
43
36
Average of 8 cooperating farms. . . .
Average of 6 other farms
56
49
50
47
48
45
While electricity thus tended to reduce the labor required about
the farmstead, in some instances it caused an increase by adding to
the number of activities undertaken. Seed-corn germinators were
operated where formerly this type of testing was not done on the
farm. Poultry production was increased, and feed was ground where
formerly it was bought.
Because of these two counteracting influences, the effect of the use
of electricity is not fully indicated by the changes in the percentage
figures. The fact that 50 percent of the labor of the farm is spent
about the farmstead is perhaps of more significance, for it suggests
the possibility of using electricity for light and power to make the
labor of the farm worker more effective.
The actual application of electric power is discussed under the
.various uses which were studied.
SCOPE OF EQUIPMENT STUDIES
All facts concerning energy consumption by equipment, with the
exception of a few tests made in the University laboratories and
on the University farm, were obtained under actual farm operating
19S9] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 401
conditions on the ten cooperating farms. A number of pieces of
equipment were installed on each farm and the use, value, and en-
ergy requirement of each piece determined in comparison with other
equipment. Under this plan it was possible to build up a reasonably
large load on each farm, resulting in a lower charge per unit of
energy used.
Thru the cooperation of manufacturers, the following electrically
operated equipment was used on the ten farms served by the test
line:
10 refrigerators 6 ironers
10 vacuum cleaners 6 water heaters
10 cream separators 2 milkers
9 portable utility 5-hp. motors 2 dishwashers
9 washers 1 kitchen aid mixer
8 grain elevators 1 paint spray machine
8 ranges 1 buttermaker
8 feed grinders 1 15-hp. motor and substation
7 water systems Other miscellaneous equipment
The distribution of this equipment by farms is shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
Tests were made also of poultry house lighting, seed germinating,
silo filling, and other miscellaneous uses.
In many cases changing to electricity for the performance of
various operations did not require much additional expense for equip-
ment. To several washing machines and cream separators already
in use, small electric motors were attached. The equipment cost of
electrically operated water systems, incubators, brooders, and the
seed-corn germinator were no more than the cost of similar equip-
ment operated by other sources of energy. An electric range costs
little, if any, more than a good coal range.
In the following pages, in two groups, are given the results of
these equipment studies. The first group covers household uses of
electricity and the second the uses of electricity in farm production.
In addition to securing data on the energy requirements of indi-
vidual operations, a primary object in testing out various uses of
electricity under practical conditions on a group of farms was to
determine as accurately as possible the total practical use that could
be made of electricity during each month of the year. The results
obtained were largely due to the interest and cooperation of the in-
dividual farmers on the line.
HOUSEHOLD USES OF ELECTRICITY
Improved living conditions on the farm are generally recognized
as one of the essentials of modern agricultural advancement. In
making better living nossible, electricity is playing an important part.
The problem of modernizing the farm home and reducing the irksome-
402
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
ness of many chores becomes much easier of solution with electric
power available.
Two groups of equipment are considered in this study of the
adaptability of electric power to the farm home. In the first group
is the larger equipment the water supply system, including plumbing
and sewage disposal, and the lighting equipment. 1 In the second
10
DAISY GARDEN
AND POULTRV
Before lectrifj'cation
HH After -Electrification
FIG. 10. A COMPARISON OF TOTAL TIME SPENT BY FIVE HOME-
MAKERS ON SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER
ELECTRIFICATION
The time saved in doing the work of the household with
electrical equipment was devoted to productive work in the
dairy and garden.
group are the movable labor-saving devices and conveniences such
as washing machines, ironers, vacuum cleaners, ranges, food mixers,
refrigerators, and other appliances of this kind. The principal part
of this study on household uses of electricity was directed to the
equipment in this second group.
'Altho electricity has been tried out for house heating, it has not proved
satisfactory for this purpose under Illinois conditions, and was not included in
this study.
1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 403
Effect of Electrification on Housewife's Time
The first step in studying the use of electrical equipment in the
farm home was to determine just how the women on these test farms
used their time and the effect which the installation of electrical
equipment had upon their expenditure of time. A week's record of
the time devoted to household tasks, to recreation, and to sleep-
ing by the women on five of the test farms was therefore taken
before electrification and another week's record a year later. A sum-
mary of the data collected is given in Table 12.
While no definite conclusions can be drawn from results cover-
ing so brief a period and kept by so few women, certain tendencies
may be noted. These are shown in graphical form in Fig. 10.
The vacuum cleaner saved from 1 to 5 hours weekly in caring
for the house. Better laundry equipment saved from 1 to 4 hours
a week. There was a tendency for less time to be spent in recrea-
tion, but this may have been due to the fact that the women were
not so tired and therefore did not feel the need of so much rest as
formerly.
More time was spent on the personal toilet after electrification
than before. This difference may have been due to the investigational
work, which brought increased personal contact, but as few visits
as possible were made by the investigators during the time this in-
formation was collected.
Less time was spent in sleeping. This may have been due to
the fact that better lights made it possible to read and do other
things in the evenings that require a good light. It is possible that
the women were less fatigued and so did not feel the need of the ad-
ditional sleep.
The time spent on dairying and in the garden was 1 to 10 hours
more a week after electrification than before. This would indicate
that a large part of the time saved by using electrical appliances
in the home was used in income-producing work.
Pumping Water for Household Use
A water system in the farm home not only is a convenience for
the housewife but renders service to every member of the family.
It ranks high among the items of equipment essential to a modern
home. The first cost, however, rather than the operating cost has
been found in tests to be the deciding factor when the farmer con-
siders the purchase of a water system.
Data on energy consumption for the pumping of water for house-
hold use were obtained at four homes where water was being pumped
from shallow wells by automatically operated, hydropneumatic sys-
tems. Water meters and electrical kilowatt-hour meters were installed
404
BULLETIN No. 332
00
CD
CN
O T< CO Ol O O IM O 1-1 -iCi-H -1C
Q
1
05
co i i I ! tc
i
o
CN
1C -OO 1C ICO OiO OC OiC -O
i-H T)H -J< (M * O (M (M CO * CO n
CO
H
e wen
s.
o
o
1C O 1C 1C O O O O 1C O -OO 1C 1C
CO i I CO ^ CO CO C '. O5 IrfKM '. '.
CO CO . CO . .
1
g w
1
co
O -iCOiC -O>CC -OO -1C -1C
EP
Ss
. 00
00 -5
3
o
"03
IM
O5
i 1
IN: : : 1-1 : :ic i"" 1 :
&
1*5
1
o
>o
-*CO ICNGO IiC '. '. '.
(M . CO .1C . . .
1
'i
D
O
1C
c '. ' '.
1O
fc
_
i-H
1-
02
W
.2
+3
9
S
g
H
3
4.
1
|
I
CN
g
f
>
g..oo.
3
c
1
s
1
f-
1
u
t-t
1929}
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
405
o
5
O
a
p
o
(_,
[*^8^
g CM CO O T}< IO ^H
(- ^ CJi CO ^* *O I-H CM
OrH
8
CM
1*8 2* a
g -i CM CO CM t-H <-H
< 1 rH
CO
>-H
3
*
bC >> 92 43
* rH CM CO t^CM
fe8
CM
j-H
| |||
g CM CM -. ^Tt<
^HCM
1 1
CO
1 S-|
5^ CM ^ O CO CO lO
QOO
CO CM
o
CO
o
"5
aj rr3 o>
i. _ _ IO IO i<
CM CM CM CM CM CM
8?
S
CO
2
to >O CM
o
IO
CM
g
. co co co
CO
co
co
OQ
o 1 1
1
i
CO
*O CO ^O CM
o
o
CO
o
1 I
"S OH
c
I" 8 3
fl 00 O
rH CM
CM
i-H
CM
83 O.
o
O
c
bO -
.S "^
"H* "
^ ^K i>x ijx
ix
^5x
its.
M S
s >>
CO
"s.sl
00 CM <*
H
CM
>
& J
bO i
.s y- .s
M
bO
bO
a
W '^ o
o
03
^
5
03
8,8
1 f i
f
I
>> Q,
3 -S 3
3
i-2
3
H
3 bO 3
3
b
3
O G O
O
_G
P S P
p
p
U
B
JO,
bfi
bfl
03
o3
hi
r-l
>
a
"
2
-S
- A
~ OH
_ n>
^ cu
3 -
O S
t< O
. t-
S."
1.2
11
a, 03
C coo
Jo.S
III
tc be M
^.S.G
^ A'E
406
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
and readings of all meters were recorded each month during the
test, which lasted for two years. The results are shown in Table 13.
Three double-acting water pumps operated under farm condi-
tions required an average of 1.42 kilowatt hours to 1,000 gallons of
water pumped (Cooperators 3, 9, and 10). The greater energy con-
sumption of the single-acting pump (Cooperator 6) during the first
year was due largely to a slight air leak in the suction pipe. The
average lift was about 10 feet. The range in pressure was from
TABLE 14. WATER CONSUMPTION AT NINE FARM HOMES EQUIPPED
WITH MODERN PLUMBING
Farms
Period during which
measurements
were taken
Number
of
people
Volume
per person
per day
A
6- 5-25
gals.
B
9- 4-25
6-11-25
3
47.5
C
7-10-25
5- 4-26
3
17.0
D
8- 3-26
3- 1-26
4
21.1
E
3- 1-27
6-15-25
4
30.4
F
12-21-25
8- 1-25
7
15.0
G 1
6- 4-26
6-19-25
8
10.0
H 1
6-19-26
6-19-25
5
38.0
Ji
6-19-26
6-19-25
5
45.8
4- 3-26
4
29.0
, H,
were not charged
and I were supplied with University water pressure and the tenants
for water used.
10 to 35 pounds. The monthly energy consumption for pumping
water for household use ranged from .5 to 7.0 kilowatt hours, aver-
aging 2.4. kilowatt hours for all pumps under test.
Considerable water was used in the cooperating farm homes from
sources other than the water systems under test, and this made it
impossible to secure a record of the total amount used in the home.
The data from another study of nine farm homes equipped with such
plumbing fixtures as kitchen sink, bathtub, lavatory, toilet, and
laundry facilities (Table 14) show wide differences in the amounts
19291 ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 407
of water used per person per day. The lowest amount was 10 gallons
and the highest 47.5 gallons. Part of this difference is to be accounted
for by differences in equipment and part to habits of the individual
families.
Laboratory tests were made on electrically driven, single-acting
reciprocating, double-acting reciprocating, and rotary pumps under
various pressures. The data secured indicate that the actual effi-
ciency of such plants is low. However, the cost of operating them
is slight, and they are so convenient that the question of efficiency
is not to be given very much consideration when compared with
other methods of pumping. From the study of such plants, however,
it is evident that many could be operated with greater economy than
at present. Fifteen to 25 percent more power is required when the
range of working pressures is set for 20 to 50 pounds than when
set for 10 to 20 pounds, which under practically all conditions is
satisfactory.
The efficiency of the particular rotary pump tested was higher
than the reciprocating pumps at low pressures but was practically
zero at 50 pounds pressure. The laboratory tests showed two double-
acting reciprocating pumps more efficient and one less efficient at
low pressures than the single-acting reciprocating pump. The tests
under farm conditions showed that the double-acting reciprocating
pumps were more efficient.
Some of the advantages of an electrically driven water system
and complete plumbing that were recognized by the users were the
following:
1. Labor and time are saved by having water where it is needed.
2. Complete bathroom fixtures are possible.
3. A constant supply of water for livestock and poultry is as-
sured.
4. The protection to farm buildings from fire is increased. The
water pressure and the water supply may not be adequate for ex-
tinguishing a well-established fire, but if the fire is discovered in
time, the pressure system certainly would have an advantage over
the bucket method.
5. The health of the family is protected by the better disposal
of sewage.
Water Heating
Tests were made to determine the efficiency of two types of
heaters the inexpensive open type connected to an ordinary hot-
water tank, and the more expensive thermos-bottle type.
Five water heaters of the open, or exposed, type, with a capacity
of 3,960 watts each, were connected to uninsulated hot- water tanks
in five farm homes. No charge was made for the energy and the
water was used more freely on some farms than others, but no record
408
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
of the amount or the temperature of the water was kept. The only
value of the data is to show the monthly energy consumption. During
the month of August on one farm where there was a family of
eleven, one of these heaters used 475 kilowatt hours of energy. During
the month of July, at another farm home, where there were eight
persons in the family, a similar water heater used 171 kilowatt hours.
This type of heater was very wasteful in the use of electricity.
A 15-gallon thermos-bottle type of water heater was used in one
farm home. This heater was equipped with a 2-hour time switch,
automatic temperature switch, and a 3000-watt element in the base
of the tank which was well insulated. The energy consumed by this
heater was 293.6 kilowatt hours per 1,000 gallons heated. The water
was generally heated for two hours in the morning, reaching 150
Fahrenheit. It remained warm enough for most purposes thruout
the day. On wash days, when considerably more water was used,
the heater was turned on again at noon.
TABLE 15. ESTIMATE OF AMOUNTS OF HOT WATER USED BY DIFFERENT-SIZED
FAMILIES WITH AND WITHOUT WATER UNDER PRESSURE
No pressure system
(based on 69 reports)
Pressure system
(based on 39 reports)
Number in family
Gallons per
person daily
Number in family
Gallons per
person daily
2
6.62
3.95
2.5 to 3. 10
4.28
2
4
7 or over
4.46
8.80
6.37
3.75 to 4. 28
5.92
4
7 or over
Average 4.1. . . .
Information on the amount of hot water used in farm homes was
secured from a group of home advisers. This data is shown in
Table 15. It is evident that the actual amount of hot water needed
will depend somewhat on the habits of the individual family as well
as on the convenience of the equipment. On the basis of the data
in this table a family of four persons, with a pressure water system
in use, would need 764.4 gallons of hot water during thirty days.
From the results of experiments with the insulated thermos-bottle
type of tank it is calculated that 225 kilowatt hours would be re-
quired to heat this amount of water sufficiently for household use.
Because of the convenience of a hot water supply, a low energy
charge would make water heating by electricity practical in reason-
ably small quantities. While the number of heating units available
per kilowatt hour limits the use of electricity for water heating,
there are possibilities for practical use of electricity for heating water
1929]
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
409
in a well-insulated tank when the current is connected with a time
switch so that the heater will be in operation after midnight, when the
electrical load is very slight and the energy used may be purchased
at a lower rate.
Tests of Washing Machines
In washing and ironing, as in many other household operations,
the matter of equipment is only one of a number of important
factors. The water supply, the method of heating the water, and the
facilities for drying the clothes all affect the ease with which launder-
ing is done.
FIG. 11. WASHING AND IRONING MACHINES IN HOME
OF COOPERATOR 10
Electric power was applied to the double-tub washer by
means of a motor attachment. By the use of these machines
the time required to do the jobs of washing and ironing was
cut about in half.
Only a limited number of tests were made to determine the effort
expended in doing the household washing before electricity was avail-
able. Eight of the ten farms used gas engines, one used a hand-
operated machine, and one washed without a machine. To wash
100 pounds of clothes without a machine required 11.2 hours; with
a hand-operated machine 10 hours were used; and with the gas
engine for power 7.5 hours were used. The distance walked when
using hand methods was 10.2 miles ; with the hand-operated machine,
it was 7.1 miles; and with the machine operated by a gas engine,
it was (3.4 miles, all per 100 pounds of clothes,
410 BULLETIN No. 332 [June,
After electricity was available, records were kept on 6 washers
of the oscillating type and 1 of the double-tub dolly type. Table 16
gives a summary of one year's washing records secured on the farms.
To wash 100 pounds of clothes required an average of 1.52 kilowatt
hours of electric energy and 8.7 hours of labor. The distance walked
by the farm women was 4.47 miles to 100 pounds of clothes. A total
of 275 weekly washings were included in the test and the number
of pounds of clothes washed was 10,211, or an average of 37 pounds
a week.
There was considerable difference in the time required, the distance
walked, and the amount of electricity used by the different women.
The operator completing the washing in the least time required only
5.9 hours of labor, walked 3.37 miles, and used 1.11 kilowatt hours of
electricity to wash 100 pounds of clothes ; the one taking the most time
required 11.6 hours of labor, walked 5.12 miles, and used 2.22 kilowatt'
hours of electric energy. The factors having most influence on the
efficiency of the operation were the type of washer and the location
and arrangement of the equipment.
While detailed records such as the above were kept for only
one year, a record of the energy consumed by the washing machines
was continued thruout the experiment. In 1927 the amount of energy
consumed monthly ranged from 1.25 kilowatt hours in a family of
two to 3.16 kilowatt hours in a family of seven, averaging 2.37 kilo-
watt hours a month for the eight cooperators. The energy consump-
tion per person per month varied from .23 kilowatt hour in a family
of eleven to .62 kilowatt hour in a family of two, averaging .36 kilo-
watt hour for all eight families.
Some idea of the value of the time spent by these farm women
in doing their washing can be determined by comparing their costs
with what the service of a city laundry would have cost them. In
one farm family where a total of 1,858 pounds of clothes (dry weight)
were washed on 50 wash days over a period of a year, 28.1 kilowatt
hours of energy were used and 136.4 hours of labor were required.
Twenty gallons of hot water and 1% bars of soap were used each
week to do the washing. The expenses were:
Cost of energy, 281 kw. hrs. at 10 cents $ 2.81
87% bars of soap at 6% cents 5.47
16% gals, of kerosene for heating water, at 12 cents 2.00
15 percent on $175 for interest and depreciation on equipment 26.25
Depreciation and interest on investment in wash tubs, boilers,
buckets, and washboard (assumed) 3.00
Bluing, starch, washing powder (assumed) 12.00
Total $51.53
The charge by the city laundry for 1,858 pounds of washing re-
turned rough dry, at 10 cents a pound, would be $185.80. Laundry
1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 411
that is finished rough dry has the flat pieces ironed. The differ-
ence between the cost of doing the laundry at the farm and that at
the city laundry, $134.27, may be considered the value of the 136.4
hours of labor used in doing the work at home. This is only a little
less than $1.00 an hour. The saving in time required to take the
laundry to town and have it returned would approximate the time
required to iron the flat pieces.
If we assume the city laundry would call for and deliver a wet
wash ready to be ironed at a cost 'of 5 cents a pound, then the com-
parison would show a saving of $41.38. In this case the housewife
would earn only 31 cents an hour for her labor in doing the job of
washing; however, there are relatively few farms located so they can
get free delivery service.
Where a gas engine was used as a source of power for washing,
a little less labor time was required than where an electric motor
was used. This was probably due to three different factors; first, the
types of washing machine used most of the farm women, in chang-
ing from the dolly to the oscillator type of machine, thought the
latter was slower; second, a man usually started the gas engine and
saw that it ran properly, but his time was not counted; and third,
there was greater haste, in order to get thru with the job before
the engine stopped.
The electric motor for driving a washing machine is practical,
economical, and entirely satisfactory. The energy used is very slight
and the cost per week is a very small item. The cleanliness, ease
of control, and the ever-ready power of an electric motor are charac-
teristics which make it an important factor in the solution of this
difficult household problem.
Tests of Electric Ironers
Farm Tests. Studies of electric ironers were made both in the
homes of the cooperating farmers and in the laboratory. The value
of the 26-inch ironer as a time saver, on the basis of actual farm
tests, is suggested by the records summarized in Table 17. The num-
ber of hours of labor required to iron 100 pounds of clothes with
the old-fashioned sad irons was 14.89; the number of hours required
with an electric iron, 10.27, and with the 26-inch ironer, 7.58.
Three of the six ironing machines that were used experimentally
the first year were purchased by three of the farmers. The average
energy used each month by these ironers was practically the same
as the average for all six the previous year.
The ironers proved of special value in homes where there were
large families. In some instances, where most of the ironing consisted
of flat pieces, the time saved over hand ironing was about one-half.
412
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
ISSSSSSg 8
J rt(NtN ^^^^ ,H
z
1 J|
. OO CN O5 CO t^ 00 OJ "*
gCOt>COOOcDOOCO CN
o
<
fc-<
T3 b> *=
a <&
-1
' COCOC35O>>-i t>
M
Z
O
^ a.5
Jsor^r^r^a oo
hH
O
3
a
o . aj
s'S
05 Ot>CNl>t^ --i IO5CO '"-H ^
SB
F-t
8
p
^COCOC"5CO * Tt<
i i
u
8
d
blUH
^O^^^COOO OS
g
o
g
o
5|p,J
f2 t- CO U3 CO CO CO CO CD
W
o
O
SB
I
rg
a; O^H<00*
g
8
O CD CO
gCNl-HCOCNr-li ICO
1 i
b
CNOCNO3OOOS
g
.CHINE
^M *
g COt>O500OOOO
"* i 1 i I i 1 i 1
H
u
P
9
2
o a>
OS rH 1> * CO CN CN
H
i
|1
3'J
^ 1-1 T}< co co t^ oo i>
CN i-H i 1 i 1
K
H
QD
II -2
oo COCN CN -CO
CO"5 id CN O -CO
H
u
1
co
i-H
11*1
g iH rH i-H CN CN -^-1
M
H
U
H
W
M J
4? W)
11
00 CO O5 O CN CN 00
^ CN * O CN CO -^
3
H
1 1
s a
^
I s !
t^. CN 00 1C I> * i-l
i I
"co H
5 1
^
I "
H
GO C5 %
i-H ^S
IH O
,
jj
-co
00
^3
-M
JD
||
"s -50
s
co
w ' 3
^
1-1
G
a
oo
o
o a5
. OO CN
CO
U3
V
CL,
3'
a) .
!l
^ i
^ bO
3 H G
? & 1
810
-, .*
i-H rH
o
CN
"i
^
i
f|
iO I
co' CM O
-SJ O t^
CN
i-H
00
00
CO
^
^1
j co
3 2
IO
"3CN
CN
Q ''
if'S'S
J w O
S CO 00
S3 COCO
CO
CO
bo i
3 >,
1!
| J J
CN
l>
E
'o
d
g
1
? machine,
j-inch roll 4
^
2
1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THB FARM 413
Some objections were made to the short-roll machines because
of the necessity of folding tablecloths and other wide pieces. How-
ever, the short-roll machine wastes less heat than the long-roll.
Some difficulty was experienced at first in operating the ironing
machines, but the longer they were used the more proficient the
women became. One machine broke a large number of buttons on
the clothes owing to light padding on the roll.
The results of this study indicates that where a large quan-
tity of clothes and household linen is ironed each week, sufficient time
and labor are saved to justify the use of an ironing machine. While
more electric energy is required to iron the same quantity of clothes
with the ironing machine than with the electric hand iron, the value
of the time and effort saved is in favor of the ironing machine.
Laboratory Tests. Thru the cooperation of the Home Economics
Department, tests were made in the laboratory to determine the effect
of moisture content upon the time required for ironing certain articles
of clothing and to study the efficiency of different lengths of roll
from the standpoint of time and electrical energy consumed.
A machine with a 32-inch roll, preheated 20 minutes, was used
in the tests to determine the effect of amount of moisture on rate
of ironing. Two centrifugal driers were used. One of these was
part of a washing machine. It was noted that the special centrifugal
drier having a high cylinder speed reduced the moisture content more
in a given period of time than the drier which is an attachment of a
washer.
The time required for ironing involves two factors the time
for manipulation and the time required to remove the water. The
results of these tests indicate that in ironing flat pieces, where the
time needed for manipulation is reduced to a minimum, the ironing
time is proportional to the percentage of moisture present.
Three ironing machines of two different makes having different
lengths of roll were used in making the efficiency tests. All three
machines differed in the design of the open end, wattage per square
inch of shoe surface, metal in shoe, speed of roll, and the control
switch or lever that operated the roll. These variable factors made
it impossible to make an exact determination of the effect of the
length of the roll on its efficiency. The procedure was as follows:
the clothes were dried to approximately the same moisture content
by means of a centrifugal drier and were weighed just before being
ironed and immediately after they were ironed. The dry weight of
the clothes was determined by drying them in an oven. The machines
were preheated to approximately the same temperature before the
tests were made, and the same pieces of clothes were run thru each
machine, making it necessary to operate one ironer at a time.
The number of grams of water driven off per watt hour by each
machine for the different kinds of clothes ironed is shown in Fig.
414
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
12. The long-roll machine removed less water per watt hour than
either of the two short-roll machines. This was due to the fact
that the operator could not keep the long-roll machine full from
Fia. 12. EFFICIENCY OF DIFFERENT LENGTHS OF IRONERS IN REMOVING WATER
FROM ARTICLES OF CLOTHING
The bars indicate the number of grams of water removed for each watt hour
of energy used. The results of the tests show that except for large, flat pieces,
the short-roll machines are more efficient users of electricity than the long-roll
machines.
end to end. The average of the four tests showed little difference
between the long-roll machine and the short-roll machine in re-
moving water where large flat pieces such as sheets and tablecloths
were ironed. The machine with the shortest roll consumed less energy
1929] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 415
per unit of work done than the other machines. As compared with
ironing by hand, the long-roll machine saved about 35 percent more
time than the short-roll machine on large flat pieces, but it did not
save any time over the short-roll machine where small or difficult
pieces were ironed.
Further tests, where all the mechanical features of the machines
are kept as nearly constant as possible, should be made before defi-
nite conclusions are drawn relative to the effect of the length of the
roll on energy consumption and rate of ironing. From results ob-
tained, however, it is evident that for the average operator the short-
roll machine is more efficient than the long-roll machine in conserv-
ing energy. The quality of work done was about the same except
in the case of the large flat pieces, with which the long roll did the
better job.
Cooking by Electricity
Farm Tests. One year's record of the energy consumed in the
operation of electric ranges in farm homes is given in Table 18.
In a few of these homes coal ranges were used part of the time
during the winter months, and in all of them ranges were given
limited use for heating water for such purposes as dish washing.
From May to September the electric ranges were used to do all the
cooking.
The most striking difference in the energy consumption during
the summer months will be noticed in the record of Cooperator 2.
During June, July, and August this cooperator did not heat any
water on her electric range. The results show that over 50 percent
of the energy used previously was used to heat water. Cooperator 8
did not heat much water on her electric range, which also shows a
low energy consumption for a family of four. Considerable fruit can-
ning was done in the summer on practically all the electric ranges.
The average energy consumption per person per month for eight
cooperators using electric ranges during the year 1925-26 was 32.5
kilowatt hours. The energy consumption per person per month ranged
from 23.7 kilowatt hours in a family of 11 to 66.8 kilowatt hours in
a family of 2, and the average monthly energy consumption ranged
from 117 kilowatt hours in a family of 2 to 319 kilowatt hours in a
family having an average of 7.5 persons.
The maximum average energy consumption occurred during Sep-
tember and the minimum during March. The average amount of
energy used monthly by each range during the different seasons was:
summer months, 215 kilowatt hours; fall months, 212 kilowatt hours;
spring months, 168 kilowatt hours; and winter months, 168 kilowatt
hours. It is interesting to note that monthly energy consumption
was practically the same during the summer and fall months and the
same during the winter and spring months.
416
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
I
o
o
O
b
M
O
w
o
O
W
3
&
CO
5
N
O
H
Z
W
00
i-H
s
5
1
o
fc
^ ^
!2! ^
1O 00 (N 00 * O * |>
rfS
g T}H CO (N IO (N CO CO IM CO
cp 1C CO CO CO l> O5 rH 00 Tf<
CO 1-1 i>oot>cot~
s *!f
^; oo os I-H 10
3 r^
- COO U5
(N
<9Q
W o>
>H
i-l (M
iH
-t-2
(Ml^OOO
c:
ro
O
(N i-H
i i
1
oo i^os co
t>ocoo
IM (N
CO
I 1
M
cOlO OT)H
^
3
t^" ^H t^ f"*>
f-^.
COCOO01>
00 CO OOO
1 ^
(N^HIN
T 1
a 2
t^OlNrH
^1
. y
co * 05 o
3 -
Tt< CO 1-1
CO
*
11
'O -Q
M 0)
I^OO
>n
oo' 00 O O O
05
^j ^5 fl
g . . . .
18 2
CO
h
^ %
14
i-si
WI> IN i-H
10
3 a3
55 "
be
1
Q,
a
fcx
O
O
I 1
t.
19291
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
417
The energy consumption of the range owned by Cooperator 2
continued to be low in 1926-27 (Table 19) ; the average energy con-
sumption per person per month for all four cooperators during this
year was only 20 kilowatt hours as compared with 32.5 kilowatt
hours the previous year. A coal range was used part of the time
by each of these four cooperators during late fall, winter, and early
spring.
The use of a pressure cooker to prepare an entire meal at one
time was an important factor in reducing the energy consumption of
the electric ranges. Records kept on cooking such combinations as
mashed potatoes, cabbage, and chile con came; or custard, scalloped
FIG. 13. ELECTRIC RANGE IN HOME OF COOPERATOR 5
The average energy consumption per person per
month for four cooperators was 32.5 kilowatt hours
in 1925-26 and 20 kilowatt hours in 1926-27. Pressure
cookers were an important factor in reducing the
energy consumption of these ranges.
potatoes, baked beans, and Swiss steak, show that from 50 to 60
percent of the energy is saved over the ordinary method of cooking
on the grids. Two of the cooperators had economy cookers, which
saved energy as well as time.
Energy is saved also by an orderly and well-planned menu, cook-
ing breakfast foods in the oven on the evening's stored heat, and by
turning the switch to either medium or low in cooking when the water
has started to boil. The placing of pans of water in the oven, or on
top of the hot grids after the meal has been cooked aids in solving
the hot water problem for washing dishes.
The cost of cooking meals on an electric range as compared with
other methods is somewhat higher, but such advantages as tempera-
418 BULLETIN No. 332 [June,
ture control, automatic control, cleanliness, etc., will make the differ-
ence in cost seem worth while to many. It should be remembered that
electricity was furnished free during the first year's tests and that the
cooperators lacked experience in operating electric ranges. This no
doubt accounts partly for the difference between the amounts of
energy used during the two years.
Laboratory Tests. A test to determine the most economical
method of cooking certain meals on the electric range, from the stand-
point of energy consumption, was made in the Home Economics
laboratory of the University of Illinois.
Some preliminary studies were made in farm homes to deter-
mine typical farm menus and to try out different combinations. Two
menus were chosen as being representative. The selection was guided
by cooking records kept by the farm women cooperating on this
project, and the amounts of food prepared were determined on the
advice of a nutrition specialist. The first menu selected was beef,
potatoes, corn, cabbage, and custard. This menu was chosen as one
which lent itself well to several methods of cooking. The second
menu selected was pork, navy beans, potatoes, tomatoes, apple pie, and
biscuits. This was chosen because it did not lend itself well to
different methods of cooking. When the meal is cooked in the oven,
the biscuits must be baked at the end of the cooking period and re-
quire a very high temperature, which makes it impossible to do much
of the cooking on stored heat; and when the meal is cooked on top
of the stove, it is necessary to heat the oven in addition in order
to bake the pie and biscuits.
The quantities of food chosen were based on the needs of a farm
family of six and were as follows:
Menu No. 1
3 pounds of beef
1 No. 2 can of corn
2^2 pounds of potatoes (after paring)
1% pounds of cabbage
1 quart of milk for custard
Menu No. 2
3 pounds of pork
1 No. 2 can of tomatoes
2% pounds of potatoes (after paring)
2% pounds of apples for pie (unpared)
3 cups of flour for biscuits
1 pound of dry navy beans
Three series of tests were made. In one the meals were cooked
in the oven ; in another, the meals were cooked on the platform heat-
ers; in a third, the meals were cooked in a pressure cooker. Two
different ranges were used and as nearly as possible the same utensils
were used on both ranges. The beef dinners consistently required
1989] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 419
less energy to cook than the pork dinners. This raises the question as
to what food combinations prove the most economical when the cost of
cooking is considered.
With one range there was more energy consumed when the pork
dinner was cooked on the surface heaters than when it was cooked
in the oven. When the beans were parboiled in the oven, the amount
of energy used was less than when the whole dinner was cooked on
the oven top. With the other range less energy was used when the
pork dinner was cooked on the surface heaters than when cooked in
the oyen. This was true also of the beef dinners on both ranges.
The amount of energy required to cook the beef dinner with
the pressure cooker was only slightly less than with platform heaters,
but it was considerably less than with the oven. The pressure cooker
did not seem to affect greatly the amount of energy used to cook
the pork dinner.
Food Mixing
Records were kept to determine the energy used in mixing food in
a machine known as the kitchen aid. This piece of equipment is
operated by a %o~h rse P wer motor and has the following attach-
ments: wire loop whip, beater, pastry knife, bread hook, mixing bowl,
food chopper set, special triple action three-quart ice cream freezer,
oil dropper for mayonnaise, ice or hot water jacket, pouring chute,
slicer and ice chipper, colander and sieve set, and roller for colander
and sieve.
The energy consumed by the kitchen aid was very slight. In a
family of 11 only 1.2 kilowatt hours per month were used, and in a
family of 8 only about .5 kilowatt hour. The machine was found
to be very helpful during canning season. Cooked fruits to be made
into butters or jams could be put thru the colander when hot, thus
saving time. During threshing, corn husking, and silo filling seasons
it was very useful for such operations as slicing or mashing potatoes,
mixing or beating eggs, whipping cream, grinding meats, etc.
Making Coffee With Percolator
A test was made by the Home Economics department to determine
the amount of electricity used in making coffee with the electric perco-
lator and the ordinary percolator when heated on an electric range.
Six cups of coffee were made in an electric percolator using 57
grams (about 8 level tablespoonfuls) of coffee and heating it to the
boiling point. One hundred sixty-five watt hours of current were
used. The same amount of coffee was made in an ordinary aluminum
percolator set on the large platform heater of an electric range. The
switch was turned to low position so that only the heating coil in the
center was hot. The energy consumption with the ordinary perco-
lator was 415 watt hours.
420
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
The ordinary percolator used was not the most efficient type and
the data, therefore, cannot be considered conclusive, but they indicate
that it may be economy to use an individual electric unit for some
purposes rather than to cook on the platform heaters on the range.
Electric Refrigeration
Some means of keeping food cool in order to keep it palatable
and prevent waste is an important consideration in every home.
An electric refrigerator was installed in the home of each of the
ten cooperating farmers in order to study its use and determine its
energy consumption and the effect of different conditions on energy
FIG. 14. ELECTRIC REFRIGERATOR IN DINING ROOM OF
COOPERATOR 4
From April to September inclusive the 10 refrigerators on
test required an average of 56.1 kilowatt hours a month. The
dining room is not an ideal location for an electric refrigerator;
an unheated pantry is better.
consumption. Five of the refrigerators were better insulated than
the others. Some were located in cool rooms and some in warm
rooms. All the boxes had a capacity of about 6 cubic feet, with the
exception of one and its capacity was 12 cubic feet. Under farm con-
ditions the refrigerator would not be used to a great extent during the
winter months.
The average monthly energy consumption of these refrigerators
over a period of a year ranged from 22.6 kilowatt hours in Decem-
ber to 80.3 kilowatt hours in August, a monthly average of 41.9
ELECTRIC POTTBR FOR THE FARM
421
TABLE 20. ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC REFRIGERATORS ON TEN COOPERATING FARMS, 1925-26 1
(Expressed in kilowatt hours)
1
00CiCCO -* 1C 05 CO 'N -H CO
^he high energy consumption of the refrigerators in the homes of cooperators 2, 5, and 8 during July and August may be accounted
for by the fact that considerable ice, sherbet, etc., was frozen. No. 1 disconnected his machine in December. Switch on No. 2 was stuck
during February and March, but that was not the fault of the machine. During November, December, and January his machine
stayed cool, but the energy record seems to show that the room must have been about the same temperature as the box. Service was
needed once on No. 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10. The capacity of each of the boxes was about 6 cubic feet, except that of No. 4, which had a ca-
pacity of 12 cubic feet. 2 W = warm room, C = cool room.
33&S 8S35?g
*
^ <^H rt< lO CO CO CO CO GO ^ CO I s -
(N
O
O
2SJSS 88899*88
00
00
O
^H i 1
CD
-
C^ C 1 ^ C^ C*^ C^ OJ CO ^H CO CO *O iO
O
oo
CO
CO
*
SSS& 8S3SSSKS
1C
c
i 1 14
CO
SS5SS SSSSS38KK
>c
CO
C^ C"^ ^"4 fH ^^ ^H T-H i-H ^^ "^ t^ t^
CO
co
CO
^ C^ ?* n J2 fc-i !L^ {-t ^ bfl
S> fc. >
-
5
fe
O
g
[inimum e
consumpt
one mon
l-H i-H (N ^
:
H
f^t
O
J3 flja
H
.2 ~S
>i >i t^> t*.
P
O
O
if!
IP
S 3333
1 1 1
- i-KNCO^H
CO CO t^ O
a
03
^
H
H
W
>j fl
S
be, o j_.
fe
H
tf
c ^
coco oo
^ >,
^
^
- a
"S
2
a.a s
1 1
o
S
|
"-
D
00
^
J5
O
o
O
-d
a)
fc
as
^_J
1
T
"S
.
t-t
o
1 1
O
S
H
OJ
2JJ
"
O,
H
o
U
3"
i-H
o
19291 ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 423
kilowatt hours for the year, which is determined by dividing the
total yearly consumption by 120, the number of customer months
(Table 20). The average energy consumption during the summer
months was 69.8 kilowatt hours, during the spring months, 38.5 kilo-
watt hours; fall months, 33.2 kilowatt hours; and winter months,
26.0 kilowatt hours.
From April to September inclusive the ten refrigerators required
an average of 56.1 kilowatt hours per month. The highest monthly
energy consumption recorded on any one refrigerator under test was
131 kilowatt hours. In practically every case where the energy per
month was above 90 kilowatt hours, it was due either to expansion
or to discharge valve trouble.
Four of the ten refrigerators were purchased in November, 1926,
by the farmers on the test line. The energy consumption of these
refrigerators from that time to November, 1927, is shown in Table
21. One of the refrigerators was operated for six months, another
for six and one-half months, and the other two for the full year.
The energy used monthly averaged 33 kilowatt hours the second year
as compared to 41.9 kilowatt hours the first year. The lower monthly
consumption the second year is due to the fact that two of the co-
operators made use of their refrigerators during summer months only
and the average was determined on the basis of the total customer
months (48), as in the first case. The maximum . kilowatt hours of
energy used occurred in July the second year and in August the first
year.
Effect of Location of Refrigerator on Energy Used. The location
of the refrigerator is a big factor in determining the energy consumed.
That less energy is used by a refrigerator in a cool room than one in
a warm room is indicated by tests made during the winter months on
several similar boxes of the same make, some located in warm rooms
and the others in cool rooms.
The difference in the energy consumption of two similar boxes
during the warm months is in a large measure due to the difference
in the individual users. Some users make a larger quantity of frozen
desserts and ice than others, and some users are more careful than
others in not putting in hot or warm foods and in covering liquid
foods. Undoubtedly these factors determine the energy required to
maintain the box at a certain temperature.
That the inside box temperature varied directly with the room
temperature was shown by temperature readings on the inside of two
refrigerators. One type of refrigerator showed a greater inside tem-
perature variation corresponding with the room temperature varia-
tions than the other type. This is illustrated in Fig. 15. No doubt
this variation was partly due to poorer insulation, to type of door
lining, and to type of door.
424
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
The variation in the energy consumption per week could not
be traced to any one factor. The number of times the doors were
opened did not seem to bear any relation to the energy consump-
tion of the box. The relation of outside humidity, inside humidity,
and defrosting to energy consumption could not be determined under
the uncontrolled conditions existing on the farms.
Advantages of Electric Refrigerators. The outstanding advant-
ages of electric refrigerators in the farm home are that they save
the time ordinarily required in going after ice for an ice box and
they make the preparation of frozen desserts, ices, and cool drinks
Fia. 15. CHART SHOWING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE TEMPERATURES
OP A REFRIGERATOR
A well-insulated refrigerator box is essential for economy in operation and
for the maintenance of a uniform inside temperature.
an easy matter. They also eliminate many of the inconveniences con-
nected with the use of the ordinary ice box. A disadvantage that
might be mentioned is that mechanical attention is needed at in-
tervals just as with any other machine, and parts wear out which
call for repairs. Most of the refrigerator dealers, however, realize this
and provide a service man to take care of these problems.
The domestic refrigerators under test did not fully meet the re-
quirements of the farm homes in the matter of storage space. On
the general farm from which cream is sold, only a little cream is
produced each day. Over a period of a week, however, these small
amounts make as much as 5 or 10 gallons. Under these conditions
most farmers would like to have storage space for this amount in
1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 425
the refrigerator. Sweet cream sells for more than sour cream, thus
an added income may be obtained by the use of a refrigerator large
enough to store the cream as it accumulates.
Dish Washing
Records were kept on both hand and mechanical dish washing
in four farm homes. The time was recorded for collecting the dishes
and stacking them away, and a record was made of the number of
dishes washed, number of persons served, number of meals served,
number of gallons of water used, and the kilowatt hours of energy
used.
Two different types of dishwashers were used. One machine
forced the water up thru the dishes by means of a paddle at the
bottom of the tub. In the other a rotary pump was used that forced
the water thru a movable pipe pivoted in the center of the tub.
The dishes were washed with about two gallons of warm or hot
water. Soap placed in the water proved less effective in washing the
dishes than water containing washing powder. The water was drawn
off after the dishes were washed, and about two gallons of hot or
boiling water was then used to rinse them. A two-minute period was
sufficient for rinsing. Some operators dried the dishes after they were
rinsed, but this is not necessary except to polish the glassware.
A summary of the results secured on four farms with these two
types of dishwashers is given in Table 22. The time reported as used
is in all cases the total time for the entire operation including the
washing of the dishes that could not be put into the machine.
In washing dishes by hand the average time used daily varied
from 2.7 to 1.53 hours. With the paddle type of machine the average
time saved was 22 percent, and with the pump type nearly 28 per-
cent. Where none of the dishes were dried except the glassware (Co-
operators 1, 8, and 10), the saving in the operator's time ranged from
22.4 percent with the paddle machine to 41.6 percent with the pump
machine. Where the dishes were hand-dried (Cooperator 5), 7.2
percent of the operator's time was saved. It is evident that the
larger part of the time reported as saved by the machines is to be
credited to the fact that when the dishes were washed by machine,
they were not dried by hand.
An average of 34 percent to 51 percent more water was used by
the mechanical washer than when the dishes were washed by hand.
The energy consumption ranged from 1 to 1.4 kilowatt hours per
month for the pump type, averaging 1.2 kilowatt hours. For the
paddle type it ranged from 1.6 to 4.8. kilowatt hours, averaging 3.2
kilowatt hours.
The two dishwashers used did not give entire satisfaction because
the dishes were not always washed clean and about 20 percent of the
426
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
z
M
5
fe
O
SE
S
o
o
o
B
o
fe
!B
O
O
^
Q
p
W
N
o
fa
a
X
O
I
P
a
m
H
5
C
S
03 *_jrl "
s^.s
Q^ 03 OT
> 03
-s a^
o
O
IN n co
. O rH O IN
<; oo t> ic o
S COlM (NCO
OIO
, t^oooot^
N
i-l O CO CO
^-1
^3 O>
fl, (N CO<-H 1C CO
IN (Ni-H --I
CD'S
-
H
3
W
H
&
O
p^
H
O
K
z
a
E
s
o
o
O
H
O
M
|
_z
3
C
off
! O OO 't* Oi
-e oo as IN os
W |
o
3 J-H
|3
o * co
"8
rO r* oo ^7^
" OOO3(N
_bfi
'S
1
O TjH O
'55
(N
M
JH -S
O M
-- ^IJ
g - o o o co
'S co oo i> oo
ft COIN IN
CO
i
cr
43
a M
N
'a S
H-3 3
o J3
H
S >o CQ 05
IN
-4-3
oq
T3
bO
C g
llo
^ a^S
O3 l-i f-i tH
(-4
*" bO bD bC
2 8 8 S
> > >
19S9] ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 427
total dishes could not be washed in the machines due to the size of the
machine or its shape. Stacking the dishes in the pump type of ma-
chine was not as easily done as in the paddle type.
The need for about 40 percent more hot water in mechanical dish-
washing than in hand washing is an objection from the standpoint
of many farm women.
Butter Making
A butter maker similar to a barrel churn, with the exception that
it had working rolls, was used by one farmer. The churn had a ca-
pacity of 12 gallons and was operated by a % -horsepower motor.
For a period of one year a record was taken of the amount of
cream churned, the cream temperature, the weight of butter, time
required to churn the cream, time required to work and wash the
butter, and the energy used. The results are shown in Table 23.
The average weight of cream per churning was 49.93 pounds,
from which 24.73 pounds of butter was obtained. The energy con-
sumption averaged .99 kilowatt hour per 100 pounds of butter churned.
An average of 7 minutes was required to work the butter and about
10 minutes to wash it. The temperature of the cream varied from
54 to 62 F., averaging 57.4 F. per churning.
The ripening of the cream and the temperature were the two main
factors that influenced the time required to do the churning. The
cream was kept in a refrigerator until a sufficient quantity was col-
lected to churn. According to expert butter makers, the ideal churn-
ing temperature is that at which, when all other conditions are normal,
the churning process is completed in about 45 minutes. The average
time required per churning with the machine was 52.4 minutes.
In this test cream of a higher temperature was churned in less
time than cream of lower temperature. The butter churned from
higher temperature cream was softer than that churned from lower
cream temperatures. The best was between 58 and 60 F.
The salt water that dripped or was thrown on the exposed metal
parts of the machine caused considerable rusting. The metal parts
should be covered with suitable paint to prevent this corrosion.
The energy requirement and the cost of operating a butter maker
is very slight, and labor is saved over hand methods. With a com-
bination of refrigerator and churn, high-grade butter can be made
by the small producer and delivered in reasonably large quantities.
The main objection to a butter maker of the type tested was the
first cost.
Electricity for Lights and for Minor Household Appliances
Records were kept of the energy consumption for lighting and
for minor appliances on each of the ten farms during the three years
428
BULLETIN No. 332
[June,
d
(N
r-KNCO '-HK
03
aij
^
I
I
o
o
U
1929} ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM 429
of the test. The energy consumption by months, during one year,
for each of the farms, is given in Table 24.
Approximately the same amount of energy was used each year
during the test period. The energy consumption of the minor household
appliances was practically constant thruout the year; and the seasonal
variations shown in Table 24 were due to the increased use of lights
during the winter months. The household appliances consisted of such
equipment as vacuum sweepers, hand irons, curling irons, fans, bat-
tery chargers, heating pads, percolators, grills, table stoves, and dish-
washers. While all ten of the cooperators had vacuum sweepers and
hand irons, no one cooperator had all of the above equipment.
As a source of energy for lights and for the operation of minor
household appliances, electricity is valued by the majority of farm-
ers more than for any other use to which it is put. Since approxi-
mately 50 percent of a farmers' time is devoted to work about the
farmstead, a large part of which is doing chores in the early morning
and in the evening after dark, electric lights save time and reduce
the possibility of accidents and fire. They thus fill a very definite
need in improving living and working conditions both inside and
outside the home.
USES OF ELECTRICITY IN FARM PRODUCTION
This study of the use of electricity for farm operations has been
directed exclusively to the application of electricity to the various
belt operations employed in farm work and to the furnishing of heat
and light. As previously stated, no attempt has been made to adapt
electric power to field work.
While a hundred or more uses of electricity on the farm have
been mentioned by various investigators, only those of most concern
to Illinois farmers were included in this study. A number of other
uses investigated at other state experiment stations are listed on
pages 474 to 478.
Electricity as a source of power for the productive work of the
farm is even less commonly used than in the work of the farm home.
Use of Portable Motor
A problem which faces every farmer who expects to use elec-
tricity as a source of power is the proper selection of motor equip-
ment. There are two methods of power drive in general use the
line shaft driving several machines and the direct-connected indi-
vidual motor. There is little question of the superior merit of the
individual drive so far as efficiency and convenience are concerned.
In industries it has largely superseded the line shaft. The same is
true to a certain extent on the farm. Certain equipment including
430 BULLETIN No. 332 [June,
pumps, cream separators, milkers, washers, and ironers, that are used
many times during the year, are being equipped with direct-con-
nected individual motors. There are other machines, however, used less
often and in some instances used only once each season, that are most
satisfactorily operated with direct-connected individual motors, but
first cost and limited use makes the purchase of individual motors
for such machines prohibitive. The portable motor that can be easily
moved about and attached is the solution.
Nine portable 5-horsepower motors, equipped with counter shaft
having three different-sized pulleys for varying speeds were in use
on the experimental line during the three years of this study. When
first obtained, only three of the units were equipped with a silent
chain to drive the counter shaft, and the other units were equipped
with leather belts; however, these were later equipped with chain
drives. Each unit was provided with a push-button control switch
on the end of a 20-foot cable, an overload temperature relay, and
50 feet of extension cable. A jack was also provided for use in tight-
ening the belt between the portable outfit and the machine driven.
A small house was made to protect the motor from rain and snow
when it was used outside.
The portable motors were used to advantage in grinding feed,
elevating grain, pumping water, sawing wood, mixing concrete, and
on one farm a portable unit was used for elevating dirt out of a
basement that was being enlarged. Most of the farmers were sur-
prised when they learned how little energy the motors used in doing
the various operations mentioned. The chain drive gave better satis-
faction than the belt drive. It was possible to obtain four different
speeds from the counter shaft with the chain drive, while only three
speeds were possible with the belt drive.
The portable motor was one piece of equipment that after the
loan period expired was kept by each of the active farmers, altho
there were a few objections to it. Under certain conditions it was
hard to move around, the leather belt gave some trouble, the push-
button control switch grounded rather easily, and the flat extension
cable that was used kinked more easily than round cable does when
being unrolled for use. Improvements have been made on the units
since they have been in use and some of the objections have been
eliminated.
The results secured indicate that a portable motor is very use-
ful and the operating expense is very slight when the amount of
work done is considered. Such a unit will no doubt play a large
part in the future use of electrical power on most farms. It met the
needs of the farmstead operations under the methods employed by
the ten cooperating farmers. However, a 3-horsepower motor was
substituted for one of the 5-horsepower motors on one of the outfits
1929}
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
431
and it is now being used on one farm, supplying sufficient power for
elevating grain, pumping water, mixing concrete, sawing wood, and
operating a 4-inch burr mill.
Elevating Ear Corn With Portable Motor
* The most efficient results obtained with a drag elevator operated by
a 5-horsepower portable motor was on Farm 1. Three thousand two
hundred and forty-one bushels of ear corn (243,100 pounds) were
elevated 24 feet into a crib with an energy consumption of 21.5 kilo-
watt hours. The energy required to lift 1,000 bushels 1 foot on the
seven outside portable drag elevators ranged from .276 to .588 kilo-
watt hour. The elevator using the greatest amount of energy re-
quired 49 kilowatt hours to elevate 2,929 bushels (219,665 pounds)
28 l /2 feet. The average energy used by the seven elevators to lift
FIG. 16. ELEVATING CORN WITH OUTSIDE ELEVATOR ON
FARM OF COOPERATOR 3
About six minutes were required to elevate a 50-bushel load of
ear corn into this 25-foot crib with the use of a clutch-type jack and
5-horsepower portable motor.
1,000 bushels of corn 1 foot was .423 kilowatt hour. The variation
in energy consumption was due primarily to the condition of the ele-
vators and the rate of unloading. The range in total lift was from
17.75 feet to 29 feet.
The vertical inside elevator with a 56- foot lift owned by Cooper-
ator X, required .130 kilowatt hour to elevate 1,000 bushels 1 foot,
or 19 kilowatt hours to elevate 2,661 bushels (199,560 pounds) 56
feet. The motor was located at the bottom of the elevator but
operated the buckets by a separate chain connecting both the top
and bottom shafts.
The time required to unload 35-bushel loads from the seven port-
able elevators was 4 to 10 minutes. Some of the elevators were not
432
BULLETIN No. 332
is-si
(N
00
CO ^C CO
CO t^ CO
^ 00
00 t~
CO
(N
00
bcoS
CO
1C (N O
00
c
CO
SM *_r^ ^?
-c r-
OO
c
(M
CO
' i *^
sj C^
^ CO >C
(N C
S
^
&T3
"3
00 O O
OO O
00
o
&
*? ^|
O5 CD O
CO 05
O5
CK>
9 (N
^H CD (N
co co o
co oo I-H
CO (N (N
O CO
O5 OO
(N (N
1C
CO
s
J> bD 13
HI!
.^ CO
s
CO i-l O
^ CO 00
1C (N
1C O
I-H
i-H
CO
3 ||
00 i-H
(N O5 CO
i-H Tf CO
O 1C
(M CO
00 CO
o
1C
o
s
0-55 >
|Q
EH S ca
CO
CO 05
I-H T-H CO
1C O5
1C ^H
i
O5
OS
(M
1 t d
(N (M
- *-i
5
bjO<4-H OS
" CO
00 O O
(M Tj<
00
CO
C >
* T ~^> ^^
^* T^
CO
1C
C
M U
5 1
^
X
&
hO o3
^4
O^ 4 O C 1
<*< 00
N
CD
'53 => >
ii, - 1^- t~-
-t-i
Q
45
1
1 amount
round
oooooo
g
73
C
03
M
.
|l
.S c^ oooo-*-*
g l> O5I> CO 00 00
i
!
is
pi
a
J3
O
M
~1
S
OJ
cu
H
s
So
cS
.:.::: 2
"*
^-t W CO -^ 1C CO
p
o
I
J
OQ
g
H
ag
> o
^S
(H 1 ^
5 o
g
K 5
bs
W
O a;
* H
M S
^o
^
a o
(HW
16
H
n
S
QQ
O
2
S
w
o
Ij
|oo co
I -"" ^
II
l^t. t.
H S,
g
^_ >>
2 ooio
O O) to
^ iot-."oo :
Hg^
-
s
CO
'o
eoi>t^ co
to OOOOt~ 00
51, T-t f-l i-H i-l
Amount
chaffed
per hour
COO(M (M
^MW ra
flj
ill
|11
_fl
CD"
(N
O5
i 1
d
s
I
1.1
S rtcic o>o
O OP GO
iJfi ' i-H r-(
3
. ooooooooo
(N
CD
.2
CO i-H O O O> O5 rH r-l O
o
Amount
ground
per hour
S OOOOCD^OOOOCO
CS CO Oi CO 00 OS 00 00 i> OO
1
111
i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 r-( i-H i t i 1
H
11
3 1 * 3
H
SOO ^O O^ t^ CO t^ b 00 t*
+a
JS
H
gL
oS
1
oo
g,
1929]
ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE FARM
441
o
S
gS
3 _o
g CO CO O5 CM
1*
g o os Oi a
II
|c^oco
a>
CO ^ '' " "
j ft
^ "~
><
PQ
Q
CO
4i
i S3
g' CO ^ t> O
H
^
fl "^
*"* l^ ?**> ro pf*
'M
coS
&-"-"-"*
a
41
H
bO O
S M O ^tl
g
M
H
4>
^J Oi O5 N Ct
'3
i
O
CO (M CO CO
Q
"S
s
ll
g C 00 CO i-l
^ t^ lOCOCN
W
o
*|
O
Q
A t-
:d 4)
j 1C COOOO
'5*
Hg =
^ IOCOTJ<
fe
_a
S
^> ^^ ^^ CO O5
S g
^ a
3
4)
i i
^
%
"S
_jL i
<-S
|
^ <<
o
rS 4>
g O tN O5 CO
W OH
b&
E
'o
g GOOO CO
S (N O O5 O
Ji, i-H i 1 i 1
12 Q
a|
^ a
fe OO
g -*(N (M
3 ft. S
M <
^ W
O Qj
^
|
~ >
a a
3
| Q
W
^^3
.SPS-S
a> ft 3
^ ^
s-s
3 fl
0,03
O o ft
oc o
C ? e ?
g
S.I
s
li
J-o
"2
ti
>
O 03
S3
a DQ
p^-g
S *
II
III
c3 o
bo o
c.Q
I ^
O co oa
H =
sil*
CD.S t. 03
> +* a3T3
<1 ft
a> (H M
|l
11
s.
J5QO
70OO
CRE
fa
AM x
pt 01
^&PA
7 Nfn
> J2i
rms
<=-coe
D
65OO
GOOD
t.TOO
1
Cut
\VES
1 =10
2= 6
3= 7
f =6
oolbi
50 "
50 "
50 "
>. CO.L
XLC/6
y pe
f ffOL
C;
^OOD
No.
No.
if
5
b
4-5OO
t
No.
No-
^
s
4-OOO
\\
1
3500
\\
\
&=
^
.-v_l
inoo
\\
\
"1
-*fe-l
2500
\1\\
1
rOr 2oon
\
\\
\
\
f.*>oo
\
\
^
*^
"
tooo
\
\
X,
soo
\
f-)
.02
O .04-O .OL
~O .01
Kwh.
.0)
per
r o .ot
/OOt
\o .090 .100
-1
03
U
S 00
^
^00
OOCOOO
OOOOCO
goo
e coco
8 : 8
CO-^IN
^H O
g O--H O COCOCO(N(M
qq
ooo
I-H (N
O t^-OOOO
^ ^ O5 ^ t^" CM
00