UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN AT!N Economic and Functional Characteristics of : FARM DAIRY BUILDINGS By R. N. Van Arsdoll, D. B. Ibach, and Thayer Cleaver AGRICULTURE LIBRARY SEP ? 6 1990 UNIVERSITY OF Bulletin 570 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture CONTENTS PURPOSE AND METHODS OF STUDY 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FARMS STUDIED 5 FARM AND DAIRY INVESTMENTS 6 Distribution of Farm and Dairy Investments 7 Investment Balance 7 Investments per Farm 11 FACTORS RELATED TO FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 16 FARM AND DAIRY COSTS 20 Relative Importance of Farm Costs 20 Size of Business and Building Costs 26 Indirect Dairy Building Costs 28 RETURNS AVAILABLE FOR DAIRY BUILDING COSTS 29 INVENTORY OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 33 PRESENT DAIRY BUILDINGS AND THEIR PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 37 Features of Dairy Buildings and Related Facilities 38 Types of Buildings and Changes Most Desired by Farmers 42 SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING DAIRY BUILDINGS 45 SUMMARY. ..63 The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the following members of the Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station: Deane G. Carter, P. E. Johnston, and W. N. Thompson in the general planning of the study; K. E. Harshbarger and other members of the Department of Dairy Science in developing the rating standards used; V. I. West in statistical treatment; and A. G. Mueller in inter- preting farm record data and in developing procedures for their use. J. R. Mc- Calmont of the U. S. Department of Agriculture also assisted the authors in planning. Participating in the field survey work were: R. D. Tompkin, J. G. Andros, J. O. Curtis, and F. M. Crawford, all of the Illinois Station; R. E. Marx, Thayer Cleaver, R. L. Beasley, and L. S. Foote, of the U. S. Department of Agriculture; and R. G. Copenhaver, Polo, Illinois, and Kent Ryan, Dundee, Illinois. Urbana, Illinois November, 1953 Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations made or sponsored by the Experiment Station Economic and Functional Characteristics of Farm Dairy Buildings By R. N. VAN ARSDALL, D. B. IBACH, and THAYER CLEAVEB* THE LARGE NUMBER OF OLD BUILDINGS still in good physical condition on Illinois farms emphasizes the construction and remodeling problems confronting their owners. Many buildings that were already out of date before World War II have been made even more inadequate by the rapid changes that have occurred in farm technology in recent years. A question foremost in the mind of many farmers today is what they can do to modernize their present buildings and how they can plan new buildings for continued usefulness. So far as new buildings are concerned, the problem can be largely solved by following designs that will permit relatively easy adjustment to future uses and by building less costly structures that can be replaced when they no longer fit the farming need. Whether to remodel an old building will depend on whether it is structurally possible to do so and financially practicable. Because of their fixed character and the effect which their design has in helping or hindering efficient production, farm buildings are of more importance, in comparison with other farm investments, than is indicated by their money value. PURPOSE AND METHODS OF STUDY The principal objectives of this study were: 1. To determine the total investment and cost of all farm service buildings on 350 Illinois dairy farms for which farm accounts were available. 2. To determine that portion of the investment and cost of all farm service buildings directly chargeable to the dairy enterprise. 2 'R. X. VAN ARSDALL, Agricultural Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Eco- nomics, U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station; D. B. IBACH, Agricultural Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture; THAYER CLEAVER, Agricultural Engineer, Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural Engineering, U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1 In this bulletin the term "investment" is used to indicate the current inventory value of the resource involved unless otherwise stated. 4 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, 3. To determine whether the returns from the dairy enterprise were sufficient to meet the costs of dairy buildings. 4. To determine the effect of facilities and layout of buildings and resulting management practices on returns from the dairy enterprise. 5. To analyze the relationships found between 1, 2, 3, and 4 above so as to increase the serviceability of dairy farm buildings and recom- mend economies in new construction and remodeling. Counties in the Illinois portions of the Chicago and St. Louis milksheds where the 350 farms studied were located. Two hundred were in the north- ern section and 150 in the southern. (Fig. 1) Two hundred farms in the Illinois portion of the Chicago milkshed and 150 in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis milkshed (Fig. 1) were selected for study in the summer of 1948. All the data concerning these farms, both physical and economic, apply to the year 1947. On all farms 10 or more cows were milked during 1947. For the economic analysis, data were taken from complete financial records kept by operators on 329 of the farms studied. 1 1 All of the 350 farms kept account books, but financial records were complete on only 329. 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 5 In that part of the study dealing with investment and cost, 1 all service buildings were included, but only the dairy buildings were given functional ratings. As no satisfactory scale was available for comparing the degree to which the different dairy buildings met the need of a dairy farm, one was developed. This was done by pooling the opinions of dairy, engineering, and farm-management specialists on what they considered desirable, in terms of layout, structure, and facilities for efficient operation. The resulting specifications were assigned proportions of the total score of 100, after being judged by the group for their importance in influencing (1) production, health, and safety of the cows; (2) labor efficiency and the safety of the operator; and (3) quality of milk. The rating given each detail of the buildings examined was arrived at by comparing that detail with the standard established for it. For any given farm the sum of the scores given the separate character- istics represents the functional rating of the entire dairy building organization. Some of the data taken from the farm records were essentially subjective, especially the inventory of real estate including buildings. Enough information was obtained on the dimensions, age, materials, structural level, and condition of the dairy buildings to permit their reappraisal by using unit-cost data at stated price levels. 2 This pro- cedure in modified form was also applied to all service buildings. Land valuations taken from the farm record books were adjusted to reflect variations in soil productivity. Unadjusted record-book inventory values were used for other farm and dairy investments. All data on investment, cost, and returns are presented in terms of 1947 price levels. Statistical methods, including both multiple regression and variance analyses, were used whenever the data permitted. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FARMS STUDIED In the Chicago area, 214 acres was the average size of the farms studied ; in the St. Louis area, 230 acres. In both areas the farms may in general be classified as crop-dairy farms. On many farms hogs were 1 As used in this study, "cost" is the sum of both cash and noncash charges whether for a single productive factor, an enterprise, or the complete farm business. When the term "cost" is used in any other sense it is qualified accord- ingly. Cash expenses are synonymous with cash costs. 1 Unit cost refers to cost per cubic foot or square foot of construction. For definition of "structural level" see page 17. BULLETIN No. 570 [November, PRODUCTIVE LIVESTOCK POWER AND MACHINERY PRODUCTIVE LIVESTOCK POWER AND MACHINERY ALL ILLINOIS FARMS 329 DAIRY FARMS Distribution of investments on all farms in Illinois as shown by 1940 census data is similar to that on the farms in this study. Dwellings are included in the data for all farms but not in the investments on the dairy farms. (Fig. 2) an important source of income; and on a few farms, beef cattle and commercial poultry supplemented the income from dairy cattle. Sheep were of no importance. Dairy herds ranged from 12 to 120 animal units, averaging 32 in the Chicago area and 23 in the St. Louis. Producing cows comprised 70 percent of the dairy-animal units in the Chicago area and 67 per- cent in the St. Louis area. 1 In both areas cows of the larger breeds predominated. Most of the 350 farms included in the study marketed relatively high-grade milk. Grade A milk was produced on 241 farms, Grade B on 60, unclassified milk on 41, and butterfat on 8 farms. All but 10 sold bulk milk, 8 sold butterfat, and 2 sold milk on the retail market. FARM AND DAIRY INVESTMENTS Service buildings, on 329 farms for which complete financial data were available, were 17 percent of the total capital investment of more than 18 million dollars (Fig. 2). When adjusted for changes in price levels, the distribution of this investment among land (including fencing), buildings other than homes, power and machinery, and productive livestock is comparable to that for the state of Illinois as shown by the United States Census of 1940, except that in the census the value of farm dwellings is included. Investments chargeable to the dairy enterprise on the farms in this study totaled 3.8 million dollars. Dairy buildings accounted for 49 percent of this amount. 1 A dairy-animal unit is one mature cow or the feed-consuming equivalent of other dairy stock. Distribution of Farm and Dairy Investments Farm investments chargeable to the dairy enterprise include those for buildings, dairy stock, feed, and equipment. When dairy buildings were not used exclusively for dairying, the percentage of the investment charged to dairying was the same as the percentage of space occupied by dairy cattle. Thus if approximately 50 percent of a barn was given over to cows, half the value of the barn was charged to dairying. The same method was used for determining the investment in feed-storage facilities including silos and in esti- mating investment in the water system chargeable to dairy cattle. Unexpired portions of farm building insurance premiums were included in the building investment. Table 1. Farm and Dairy Investments, 1947, for 200 Farms in Chicago Area and 150 in St. Louis Area Chicago area St. Louis area Both areas Item Percent of total farm invest- ment Percent of dairy invest- ment Percent of total farm invest- ment Percent of dairy invest- ment Percent of total farm invest- ment Percent of dairy invest- ment 16 46 C) 3 30 21 100 20 57 8 7 8 100 53 w 4 23 20 100 17 60 6 9 8 100 49 () 3 27 21 100 Land and Iftnd improvements 62 Power and machinery 11 5 Productive livestock . . . 10 Feed 7 Total . . 100 a Use of land was charged to the dairy enterprise in the form of feed costs for all farm-grown feeds utilized. b Includes investment in horses and mules. This item covers only dairy equipment when referring to the dairy enterprise. From one-sixth to one-fifth of the total capital investment on the farms studied was in service buildings. The proportion was higher in the St. Louis area than in the Chicago area. Dairy buildings usually account for about half of the total dairy investment, but in the St. Louis area they accounted for more than half. (See Table 1.) Investment Balance Buildings and land. The building-land investment balance for the two areas is shown in Table 2. The value and the productivity of land is lower in the St. Louis area, and the investment in buildings per $100 invested in land is higher than in the Chicago area. Metropolitan influence may be reflected more in the Chicago area than in the St. Louis, but most of the higher land value (nearly double 8 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, Table 2. Inventory Value of Buildings of Different Ages per $100 Invested in Land Item Chicago area St. Louis area Land value per acre* $195 $104 Inventory value of buildings per $100 of land investment Older buildings' 5 16 21 Medium-age buildings b 25 30 Newer buildings b 41 49 Determined on the basis of soil-productivity ratings prior to World War II. b Older, medium-age, and newer buildings are those having less than 41, 41 to 65, and more than 65 percent, respectively, of their original values remaining. that of the St. Louis area) can be explained by higher soil productivity. When land is of low productivity as in the St. Louis area, farms are more apt to become overcapitalized. Under such circumstances it is hard for farmers to keep their building investment low relative to their land investment. Under 1947 price conditions the newer buildings in the St. Louis area were valued at nearly half the value of the land. Overcapitalization, however, had taken place in both sections. The investment required to construct an average dwelling and replace existing service buildings would, on many farms in both areas, ap- proach or even exceed the value of the land. On only 7 percent of the farms in the Chicago area did the invest- ment in buildings exceed $60 per $100 of investment in land, whereas in the St. Louis area 21 percent of the farms exceeded this figure. Also compared with St. Louis the Chicago area had 13 percent more farms with building investments that were below $30 per $100 of land. A major problem for farmers is to maintain proper balance between service units and direct producing units. It is especially difficult to achieve economical investments in buildings comparable to those possible with the more flexible types of working capital such as live- stock or farm machinery. This holds true both for those who are adding improvements and for those who are contemplating buying. Buildings and livestock. Buildings on the farms studied were used primarily to service livestock. In each area approximately 60 percent of the farms had building inventory values from $100 to $299 for each productive animal unit. 1 Those in the St. Louis area tended toward 1 Existence of waste space, or crowding of animals, as well as structural differences, influences the investment in buildings and their annual cost per animal unit. The range in investment and annual cost per unit of livestock indicated in several instances herein, suggests the desirability of case studies to determine the reasons for some of these extremes. Where successful operations are associated with low investment and annual cost of buildings per unit, such studies would be particularly useful. 1953} ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 9 higher investment per animal unit than those in the Chicago area. Such a tendency cannot be explained by the greater proportion of dairy animals to all producing animal units on the farms in the St. Louis area (Fig. 3). The cost of replacing these buildings in the same form and with the same materials would be $350 per dairy-animal unit in the Chicago area and $372 in the St. Louis area. As nonproducing animals comprise about 30 percent of the average herd in both sections, this outlay in either milkshed would be more than $500 for each cow milked. (See Figs. 4 and 5.) In any industry investments in buildings should be related to the productivity of the enterprises they serve. For this study herd-in- ventory figures were considered to reflect the productivity of the farm dairy enterprise. When the value of dairy herds was compared with the investment in dairy buildings, the ratio was found to be more favorable in the Chicago area than in the St. Louis area. For each $100 invested in dairy stock, replacement of all dairy buildings in 1 Vo OF FARMS BUILDING INVENTORY VALUE 55 PER ANIMAL UNIT ^ 30 - rrr I // 20 1 '// '// '// /// y/ ':: ^ CHICAGO AREA [x] ST. LOUIS AREA 10 ; : /// /// \ rrr i i // % P- $ik r & VL //( ti \//. : . : .' v/^f/\ o o r?tn ...i\ Building values on more than half the farms, both in the Chicago and the St. Louis area, were from $100 to $300 per animal unit. (Fig. 3) 10 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, /oOF FARMS DAIRY BUILDING INVENTORY VALUE 40 PER DAIRY-ANIMAL UNIT 1 Wtf\ CHICAGO AREA y^ tvXvH ST. LOUIS AREA 30 20 10 - y// yy/ yy/ yy/ % yy/ yy/ yy \ u ty/ ty/ yy/ % yy/ yy/ yy $40- 60- 100- 200- 300- 400- 59 99 199 299 399 799 The dairy buildings on most farms in this study were valued from $100 to $300 per dairy-animal unit. Differences in value reflect economy of con- struction and use, and age of the buildings. (Fig- 4) their original form at 1947 prices would require $286 in the Chicago area and $395 in the St. Louis area. The comparison is similar when depreciated building-inventory values are used. Table 3 shows these relationships in the form of a frequency distribution. The inventory value of the older dairy buildings was about equal to the investment in dairy stock, while the value of the newer build- ings was approximately three times as much. 1 On most farms the reproduction cost of dairy buildings ranged from $200 to $800 for each $100 invested in dairy stock. The average farmer interested in buildings similar to those studied may expect to spend, at cost-price relationships existing in 1947, approximately $300 to each $100 1 Older, medium-age, and newer buildings are those having less than 41, 41 to 65, and more than 65 percent respectively of their original values remaining. 1963] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 11 invested in dairy stock. However, it is no longer necessary to build barns as large as those included in this study because of changes in methods of handling roughage, particularly the use of baled hay, chopped hay, and grass silage. Farmers who prefer simple structures and less expensive materials may be able to erect functional buildings at a cost more nearly equal to their investment in stock. It should be remembered that high investment does not guarantee a functional building. Buildings which were in the upper levels of investment relative to $100 in dairy stock did not receive higher functional ratings than those in lower levels. Investments per Farm In 1947 in the Chicago area total farm-inventory values averaged $68,011, of which $13,068 was in the form of dairy investments. In % OF FARMS REPRODUCTION COSTS OF 40 EXISTING DAIRY BUILDINGS PER DAIRY ANIMAL- UNIT w^n 30 20 10 \//A CHICAGO AREA E : : : : : : : : : l ST LOUIS AREA i Q 1 rrrr rrrr f $ 40- 60- 100- 200- 300- 400- 800- 59 99 199 299 399 799 1299 Reproduction of existing buildings would cost from $400 to $800 per dairy- animal unit on a third of the farms. Most buildings in this group are more elaborately constructed than necessary and, in many cases, waste space. Some buildings costing from $100 to $400 per dairy-animal unit have the facilities of a complete dairy plant, while others in the same cost range lack such facilities. (Fig. 5) 12 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, Table 3. Dairy Building Investment per $100 Investment in Dairy Stock Dairy building investment per $100 investment in dairy stock Number of farm s, Chicago area Number of farms i, St. Louis area Old build- ings" Medium- age build- ings" Newer build- ings" New b (all groups) Old build- ings" Medium- age build- ings" Newer build- ings" New b (all groups) $40- $59 . . 11 1 13 34 8 3 1 60 1 4 13 25 9 7 59 2 29 67 38 43 3 182 2 10 18 2 1 33 6 25 15 5 4 55 2 6 17 13 20 1 59 14 36 30 57 10 147 $60- $99 . 25 $100- $199 23 $200- $299 3 $300- $399 1 $400- $799 $800-$! 299 Total . 63 Farms classified by inventory value of dairy buildings in 1947 per $100 investment in dairy stock. b Classified on basis of cost of reproducing all existing dairy building at 1947 prices. the St. Louis area in the same year the average total farm investment was $41,820; the average dairy investment, $9,513. The inventory values of all service buildings on the 350 farms studied (Table 4) ranged from a little over $4,000 per farm to a little over $21,000. Total dairy investments per farm in the St. Louis area averaged 73 percent of those in the Chicago area. Of greater significance is the allo- cation of investment within the dairy enterprise itself. In the St. Louis area the investments in dairy buildings per farm were about 85 per- cent of those in the Chicago area, while the investments in dairy stock were only 56 percent of those in the Chicago area. The inventory value of dairy buildings on all farms in both areas ranged from slightly more than one-third to nearly two-thirds of the total dairy investment per farm, depending on the amount of depre- ciation charged to the buildings (Table 5). The average cost per farm of reproducing all dairy buildings at 1947 prices would exceed $6,000 on 84 percent of the farms in the Chicago area, but only 65 percent of the farms in the St. Louis area would require $6,000 or more. Table 4. Inventory Value of All Service Buildings per Farm ] inventory value of Size of farm Older buildings Medium-age buildings Newer buildings (man- work units)" 170- 325 . . $4,360 $ 6,750 $ 8,850 326- 405 .... 4,680 6,230 11,660 406- 505 5,680 8,450 12,940 506-1,390. . 7,710 12,580 21 ,450 One man-work unit equals the amount of work done by an average worker under average condi- tions during a ten-hour day. 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 13 Table 5. Total Dairy Investment and Dairy Building Investment per Farm Age of buildings Total dairy investment per farm Dairy building investment per farm Percent of total dairy investment in buildings Older . $ 8,672 S 3,046 35.1 10,134 4,579 45.2 Newer . . . 14,836 8,458 57.0 New* 15,858 10,018 63.2 Assuming reproduction of all dairy buildings at 1947 prices. Larger dairy enterprises in the Chicago area account for a major por- tion of this difference. Need for greater flexibility in buildings. Farmers, and dairymen in particular, have a high ratio of fixed to total costs. Also, prices for farm products fluctuate more than prices received by investors in most nonfarm industries. These conditions emphasize the importance, when constructing or remodeling farm buildings, of following a plan that can be rather easily adapted to shifts in the type or size of the farming enterprises. Even when the investment in a building has been fully recovered, the building itself may become a burden if it cannot be made to serve efficiently new uses demanded by changed conditions. Many types of farm dairy buildings do not even permit economical expansion in order to adjust to a larger herd. It is true, of course, that some farmers may change the size of their business and even their type of farming without making com- mensurate changes in their buildings, for building changes are often hard to make. They may even add a dairy business without building new structures or remodeling the old. Consequently there is less rela- tion between type and size of business and building investment than there would be if buildings could be as easily adjusted to varying demands as are some other production facilities, such, for example, as farm implements. Most of the buildings on the farms studied were forty to seventy years old when this survey was made. They had been built when these farms produced mostly grain and meat animals. With growing populations in the nearby cities of Chicago and St. Louis, changes in food habits, and improved transportation, it was natural that many farmers should add dairying to their enterprises or shift to it exclu- sively. But few of the buildings were altered to any significant extent. Newer production methods, the introduction of mechanical power, shortage of labor, and its high cost all serve to emphasize the inade- quacies of many of these buildings. 14 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, Table 6. Dairy Building Investment per Dairy-Animal Unit in Relation to Size of Herd and Structural Level of Buildings (85 Farms) Building investment per dairy-animal unit where Number of dairy-animal average structural level was 1.0-1.15 1.16-1.75 1.76-3.0 All levels 12-19.9. . . $607 $413 $368 $448 20-27.9 . . . 444 391 362 393 28-35.9 354 305 358 342 36-59.9 336 375 316* 340 All herd sizes ... . 387 375 356 375 Less than five farms included in the average. The types of buildings found in use on farms included in this study do not permit reductions in building investment per dairy- animal unit as size of herd increases. Although a few farms within a selected group show a downward trend as size of herd increases, only 10 percent of that change can be attributed to increased scale of operations. Effect of size of herd on building investments. In order to examine as accurately as possible the effects of different sizes of herds on building investments, steps were taken to exclude other influences. First, all farms on which waste space or crowding of cows occurred were eliminated from the comparison. Second, all farms were left out on which more than 80 or less than 66 percent of the total dairy units were milked. A farm with a high proportion of young stock ordinarily would have lower unit investments since young stock require relatively inexpensive housing. Third, extremely large herds were omitted as there were too few of them from which to draw conclusions. After screening, 85 farms remained of the original 350. These 85 farms, in order to eliminate the influence of structural differences, were classified according to the average structural level of the dairy build- ings. 1 For example, buildings falling into the structural level group 1.0 to 1.15 (Table 6) range from all "A" structural level to 85 percent "A" and 15 percent "B" structural level. Those in group 1.76 to 3.0 range from 25 percent "A" and 75 percent "B" structural level to all "C" structural level. Table 6 shows the average reproduction building investment per dairy-animal unit for the 85 selected farms. 2 Average unit investments 1 Structural level refers principally to characteristics of buildings that indi- cate permanency and completeness as to details of construction. See footnote, page 17, for a more complete definition. 2 It is recognized that most farmers would not rebuild the same structures that they now have. But analysis on a replacement cost basis insures compara- bility among farms with respect to existing buildings. 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 15 $800 600 400 200 10 20 30 40 DAIRY-ANIMAL UNITS IN HERD 50 60 In the case of buildings of the highest structural level, the building invest- ment per dairy-animal unit decreased somewhat as the size of the herd increased. However, influences other than the size of herd are more im- portant in determining unit investment. (Fig. 6) for the different size groups indicate that fanners having buildings of the highest structural level profit from having large herds, but that it is difficult for them to obtain low investments in buildings for small herds. The difference in the average unit investment in dairy buildings for the different sizes of herds is very small on farms having dairy buildings of medium to low structural level. The investment in buildings per dairy animal unit as related to size of herd for each farm having dairy buildings of the highest structural level, 1.0 to 1.15, is shown in Fig. 6. The extent of disper- sion indicates that factors other than size of herd are responsible for a large part of the differences in unit investments. For herds of 20 to 25 dairy-animal units, the investment per unit in buildings varied from about $200 to nearly $800. On these farms building investment per dairy-animal unit decreased at a diminishing rate as size of herd increased to a maximum of 40 to 48 dairy-animal units. Diseconomies to scale might occur at some point beyond which further increases in size of herd would not lower building investments per dairy-animal unit. However, the data shown in Table 6 did not provide an adequate basis for locating such a point. Only farms in the group having buildings of the highest structural 16 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, level revealed any variation in unit investment that could be attrib- uted to size of herd. Of that variation only 10 percent was attributable to difference in size of herd. If the buildings had been planned so that they could be readily enlarged, there would have been more relation- ship between size of herd and unit investment. A durable building is usually expensive and cannot be replaced economically until most of the initial investment has been recovered. Much of the current problem, therefore, is to improve present buildings through well-planned remodeling. As new buildings are constructed, they should be made flexible even at the cost of some permanency. Owners should not exclude from consideration, however, the possibility of combining low cost, flexibility, and adequate permanency. General plans for combining these desirable features in buildings are shown in Figs. 14 through 22. FACTORS RELATED TO FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The size of herd, age and structural level of buildings, investment, and market grade of milk were studied in relation to the functional characteristics of dairy buildings. Size of herd. Variation in the number of dairy-animal units in the herd was associated with one-fifth of the variation in the functional ratings of the buildings. Farmers who are devoting their resources largely to dairy production have constructed and maintained buildings with more of the desirable characteristics than have farmers with small herds. Table 7 indicates the effects of size of herd and age of buildings on functional ratings of buildings. Age of buildings. Twelve percent of the variation in functional ratings was associated with differences in the age of buildings. In the newer buildings functional contribution tends to be higher for at least three reasons. First, some essential parts deteriorate with the passage Table 7. Functional Ratings of Dairy Buildings Classified by Size of Herd and Age of Buildings ( Average functional rating for buildings Dairy-animal units in herd 0-15 years 16-25 years 26 years All age groups old old and over 12.0- 19.9... . 73 66 66 68 20.0-23.9 78 70 70 72 24.0- 31.9 77 74 67 73 32.0-120.9 82 79 79 80 All size groups 78 73 70 73 1953} ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 17 of time. Concrete floors may crack and obstruct cleaning operations, gates and doors become loose, and many other faults develop. De- terioration, however, is not the major cause for lower ratings of older buildings. Second, the conversion of older buildings for use in dairy production has been incomplete. In many cases, knocking down horse stalls and putting in cow stalls were the only changes made. Third, older buildings were constructed without knowledge of many of the current requirements for efficient production of high-quality milk. New technological developments may be largely responsible for the higher ratings of the newer buildings. However, even though progress has been made in building design, arrangement, layout, and construction, such improvements have been slow in appearing on farms. On the farms studied the average improvement in functional ratings of the buildings has been only one point for each three and one-half years reduction in age. Structural level. On farms in the St. Louis area the functional ratings tended to be higher with buildings of higher structural level, nearly 20 percent of the variation in the ratings being associated with differences in structural level. 1 But in the Chicago area there was practically no relation between functional characteristics and struc- tural level. There, the more rigorous climate and generally higher incomes may have tended to bring about construction of buildings of uniformly higher structural level regardless of the purposes for which they were built. In the St. Louis area, however, where the climate is milder and there is a greater variation in income, the structural level of the buildings varied widely. This was especially true when owners had shifted to the production of Grade A milk, since compliance with legal requirements and changes instituted for their own convenience tended to raise the structural level of their buildings. However, a high struc- tural level in buildings may not mean ease in producing milk of high grade. 1 Dairy barns classified as of high (A) structural level have good concrete or brick foundations of good depth and height. Floors are of smoothed and properly formed concrete. The walls and ceiling are sealed; the stall and stanchions are of steel. Barns of intermediate (B) structural level have foundations of stone mortared together; concrete blocks; or skimpy, thin, crumbling, noncontinuous poured concrete walls. Floors are of low-quality rough concrete or wood. The walls are not finished inside of studs; the stalls and stanchions are of steel. Barns of low (C) structural level have foundations of loose rock, piers, poles, or other similar material. Floors are of earth or wood laid on the ground. Such buildings have unfinished walls, and stanchions and feed boxes are made of wood. The definitions were adapted from the Illinois Real Estate Appraisal Manual, 1942. 18 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, Some of the improved designs for dairy buildings, especially those for loose housing, indicate that it will be possible to obtain both permanency and high functional ratings in dairy buildings at an in- vestment equal to or even lower than that of most existing buildings. Investment in buildings. No measure for building investment could be found which would give completely accurate results in examining the relation of investment to functional contribution. Since depre- ciated or inventory value ordinarily decreases more rapidly than does functional value, reproduction cost was preferred in this study. Even reproduction cost, however, is not a thoroughly desirable measure because few farmers would construct buildings exactly like those now on their farms. Of the variation in functional rating on farms included in this study only 4 percent could be attributed to differences in the repro- duction cost of existing buildings. Part of the reason for this nonrela- tion illustrated in Table 8 lies in the inadequacy of reproduction cost as a measure of investment in buildings, but most is due to certain specific factors closely associated with the physical nature and use of dairy buildings. In the high-investment group, three-fourths of the buildings were of highest structural level, compared with about one-fifth in the low investment group. High structural level in the prevailing dairy housing systems is generally associated with costly materials and expensive types of construction, but as has been previously stated the use of such materials and types of construction does not necessarily increase the functional status of the buildings. Of the farms in the high-investment group, three-fourths were producing Grade A milk, compared with only three-fifths of those in the group having lowest investments in buildings. Many owners who shifted to Grade A increased their investment in order to meet Table 8. Functional Ratings of Dairy Buildings Classified by Replacement Cost (1947) and Age of Buildings Average functional rating for buildings Reproduction cost of dairy buildings per dairy-animal unit 0-15 years 16-25 years 26 years All age groups old old and older $100-8199. 77 69 71 71 $200-8299 80 71 62 70 $300-8399 . 76 74 71 74 $400-8499 . 79 74 73 75 $500-8799 81 77 72 76 All investment erouos . . . 78 73 70 73 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 19 Table 9. Functional Ratings of Different Classes of Features of Dairy Buildings Classified According to Grade of Milk Produced Average functional rating in Average functional rating in Chicago area for St. Louis area for building features affecting: building features affecting: Production, health, and safety of cows Labor efficiency and safety of operator Quality of milk Production, health, and safety of cows Labor efficiency and safety of operator Quality of milk A. . 36 8 18 2 22 2 36.5 17.3 21.7 B 34 9 16 3 16 6 33 7 15 1 18.2 C. . 36 5 15 8 16 8 31 4 13.3 14.9 Possible rating . . . . 45 25 30 45 25 30 certain requirements but did not necessarily increase the functional quality of their buildings. On farms in the upper 10 percent based on investment in build- ings per dairy-animal unit, 72 percent of the dairy-animal units were producing cows; on farms with lowest investments only 64 percent. This means that on the farms in the latter group there was a higher proportion of young stock. Young stock utilize relatively low-cost structures. This condition is not an undesirable one, but it does make it difficult to establish a clear relationship between investment and the functional characteristics of dairy buildings in more general use. Crowding of animals was reported on 61 percent of the farms having lowest investments in buildings and on only 25 percent of the farms having highest investments in buildings. Conversely waste space was observed on nearly two and a half times as many farms in the high-investment group as in the low-investment group. Either crowding or wasting space reduces the usefulness of the building. Wasting space, however, increases investment per animal unit, while crowding results in low investment per animal unit. Market grade of milk. The functional rating of buildings also varied with the grade of milk produced (Table 9). After eliminating the effects of investment, age, size of herd, and structural level, it was found that in the St. Louis area farms producing Grade A milk had buildings which rated 10.2 points above those on farms producing Grade C milk 1 and 3.1 points above those on farms producing Grade B milk. In the Chicago area on farms producing Grade A the build- ings rated 6.5 points higher than those on farms producing Grade C, and 5.7 points higher than those on farms producing Grade B milk. The functional rating of those features of the buildings related to 1 Grade C includes milk not used for fluid consumption and butterfat. 20 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, quality of milk and efficiency in the use of labor varied consistently with grade of milk produced in both areas. Farmers producing Grade A milk generally have a more efficient over-all set of dairy buildings. When farms are classified according to grade of milk produced there is more difference in the average ratings of those building features assumed to affect quality of milk than in those affecting production or efficiency in the use of labor. This merely means that operators pro- ducing Grade A milk generally adhere more closely to structural and facility standards usually considered necessary for producing such milk than they do to standards related to efficiency in production. In summary, size of herd, age and structural level of buildings, and investment in buildings per dairy animal unit combined are as- sociated with about 38 percent of the variation in the functional rating of buildings in the Chicago area and 46 percent in the St. Louis area. The major portion of the remaining variations can be attributed to management decisions at the time of construction. For example, prefer- ences for expensive materials or elaborate construction may increase investment without affecting functional characteristics. Possibly some of the variation may reflect inadequacies in the rating system. FARM AND DAIRY COSTS Items usually identified in determining total farm costs are land, improvements (primarily buildings) , power and machinery, labor, feed, taxes, livestock, and miscellaneous. In determining total farm costs, the cost of farm-produced feed is included in the land, labor, and power and machinery costs. Only cash expenditures for feed and interest on the investment in feed inventories are identified as "feed" costs in ar- riving at total farm costs. Most cash costs other than taxes and interest payments are vari- able they depend on the nature and extent of operations. But the noncash costs with the exception of unpaid family and operator labor are rather firmly anchored to investments. Most prominent among these fixed costs are depreciation, which is estimated on the basis of the expected period of service, and interest on investments. The total farm cost is then the sum of all cash expenses and the value of unpaid labor, plus the carrying charges on the fixed investments. Relative Importance of Farm Costs The proportion of total investment tied up in each production re- source (land, buildings, cows, etc.) is far different from the proportion 19531 ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 21 Table 10. Relative Importance of Different Classes of Cash and Total Farm Costs Chicago area St. Louis area Cash costs Total costs* Cash costs Total costs* Land perct. perct. 11 perct. perct. 9 Land improvements. . . . 6 5 5 4 5 10 3 10 22 20 28 21 Productive livestock 5 5 3 3 Feed . . . 38 21 42 22 Labor . . 17 24 13 28 Taxes. . . 6 3 5 3 Miscellaneous 1 1 1 (b) Total 100 100 100 100 Total costs for buildings, power and machinery, and land improvement include cash costs plus interest and depreciation. For livestock and feed, total cost is the sum of cash expenses and interest on the investment. Total labor cost is the sum of cash for hired labor and the value of family labor. For land the total cost is interest on the investment. b Less than 1 percent. of total cost each item represents. The durable investments (land, buildings) form the major part of the total investment but their annual costs are only a small part of total costs. Operating costs for such items as power and machinery, feed, and labor account for the major portion of all farm costs. Except for labor, which includes much un- paid family and operator labor, these operating costs account for a higher proportion of cash than of total costs. (Distribution of different classes of cash and total farm costs is shown in Table 10.) Cash costs are the actual cash expenditures for 1947 as given in the individual farm financial records, except for building maintenance and repairs for which the average cost over a six-year period was used after adjusting the cost each year for price level changes. This pro- cedure was used because annual cash building costs on the same farm may be quite erratic. Cash outlays in 1947 for fertilizer, feed, labor, and other similar items were accepted as normal. Building costs on the average were about 10 percent of total farm costs. They ranged from less than 5 percent to 30 percent (Fig. 7). When the quantity of a productive resource can be changed readily to conform to varying needs, its annual cost will vary with the size of business. However, size of business and type of farming had little influence on building costs in relation to total farm costs. As methods of production change, size of enterprise and types of farming change, but buildings do not change correspondingly. The dairy enterprise was charged with the use of buildings, equip- ment, dairy stock, feed, and labor. Charges for buildings, equipment, and stock included interest, depreciation, and cash expenses; those 22 BULLETIN No. 570 [November. 10 2 160 140 120 100 80 DC uj 60 (O 5 I 40 20 RATIO OF BUILDING COSTS TO TOTAL FARM COSTS CBOTH AREAS) 5 10 15 20 25 30 PERCENT BUILDING COSTS ARE OF ALL FARM COSTS Variation in building costs relative to total farm costs emphasizes the diffi- culty of adapting buildings to meet changes in farm operations. (Fig. 7) % c ^^ )F TOTAL 70 - 60 50 40 fc/^/j CASH COSTS I [ > | TOTAL DAIRY /// 30 COSTS ^ Y/, 20 % ty 1 O y //, ^/ :!! '// /xx ' ' ' o Hi E23 l^xl P m BLDGS. EQUIPT. STOCK FEED LABOR Buildings are of more value in the dairy industry than their proportionate costs (10 percent) would indicate. (Fig- 8) ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 23 Table 11. Relative Importance of Cash to Total Costs of Specified Items Charged to the Dairy Enterprise Items of dairy cost Chicago area St. Louis area Both areas Buildings perct. 23 perct. 16 perct. 20 Equipment 50 50 50 Stock 52 48 51 Feed 22 27 24 Labor 33 23 29 Total 26 27 26 for feed included interest, cash expenses, and the value of farm-pro- duced feeds; those for labor, cash expenses and the value of unpaid labor. Interest for buildings was at 5 percent on the depreciated inven- tory value of buildings. Rates of depreciation were varied according to structural level and condition of buildings. Farm-produced feed was charged at 1947 market prices. The value of unmarketable feeds was established on the basis of feeding value relative to the feeding value of similar types of marketable feeds. Costs of producing feed were not identified as feed costs, but were included in the cost of labor, power, and machinery used in feed production. 1 Cash expenditures for feed comprised 65 percent of all cash dairy expenditures (Fig. 8). Total feed charges represented 70 percent of total dairy costs. Building costs represented 8 percent of cash and 10 percent of total dairy costs. Feed expenditures were obviously more impressive than those for buildings. However, the contribution of buildings to the success of the dairy enterprise cannot be judged by direct cost relationships alone. For a true estimate, examination must be made of the effects of buildings on the quantity and efficiency in use of such inputs as labor and feed and on the price received for milk. Table 11 shows that cash outlay for repair and maintenance of dairy buildings averaged 20 percent of total building costs. Cash building costs were a larger part of total building costs in the Chicago area than in the St. Louis area. No study was made of the influence of structural level on repair and maintenance costs. Before examining building costs, it is well to observe the average costs per farm in the two areas. 1 To the extent that the portion of these costs chargeable to feed production on the farm is less than the market value of such feed, the analysis indicates the competitive position of the dairy farmer (considering the farm as a unit) to be less favorable than it actually was. The cost of producing farm-grown feed fed to dairy cattle was estimated and was found to be about 40 percent less than the market value of this feed in 1947. 24 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, Table 12. Average Cash and Total Costs per Farm Item Costs in Chicago area Costs in St. Louis area Costs in St. Louis area per $100 cost in Chicago area Cash Total Cash Total Cash Total All farm costs Buildings ... $332 $1,480 1,622 711 2,814 681 3,000 3,437 422 99 14,266 $169 '257 1,532 143 2,242 694 293 48 5,378 $1 ,053 927 469 2,347 298 2,416 3,030 293 48 10,881 $51 59 96 41 83 57 69 48 75 $71 57 66 83 44 81 88 70 48 76 Land Land improvements Power and machinery 433 .. 1,601 350 Feed .... 2,707 Labor . 1,214 Taxes. . . 422 Miscellaneous .... 99 Total .. 7,158 Dairy costs $190 $ 809 165 413 6,123 1,097 8,607 $104 68 99 1,140 212 1,623 $ 630 137 207 4 ,155* 921 6,050 $55 83 46 83 58 73 $78 83 50 68 84 70 82 Stock . . . 216 Feed . . . 1,364 Labor 364 Total .. 2,216 All farm-grown feed fed to dairy cattle was charged at market prices, hence total dairy feed ists calculated in this manner are higher than total farm feed costs. See footnote on page 23. Average cash and total costs per farm in the St. Louis area were about three-fourths those in the Chicago area (Table 12). Total costs for power and machinery, feed, and labor in the St. Louis area were substantially higher relative to those in the Chicago area than was the case for most other items. But costs per farm for land and livestock were relatively low in the St. Louis area. Cash expenses per farm for power and machinery in the St. Louis area were nearly equal to those in the Chicago area, and for feed they were 83 percent of those in the Chicago area. Compared with all cash farm expenses those for repair and maintenance of buildings were low in the St. Louis area. The same was true of land improvements and livestock. Cash labor costs were also relatively low in the St. Louis area, primarily because of smaller herds and use of more family labor. Cash costs approximated 50 percent of total farm costs in each area (Table 12), but they comprised only about one-fourth of total dairy costs, principally because charges for farm-grown feed were added to dairy costs and comparatively little hired labor was used. Dairy building costs may be presented in two ways, each having merit when used appropriately. First, over the usable life of a build- ing a fixed rate may be applied to the original investment to cover depreciation, interest on the investment, and repair and maintenance costs. The amount of this annual charge will vary. An appropriate 1953} ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 25 range may be from 6% to 8 percent of the original investment. The average annual costs of medium-age buildings as classified in this study are approximately the same as if a constant rate had been ap- plied to the original investment in buildings. Second, a cost covering these same charges may be computed each year from the current in- ventory value of buildings. Depreciation and repair and maintenance costs combined probably will be relatively constant over the years, but annual interest charges are at a maximum when a building is new and diminish annually as more of the original investment is recovered in the form of earnings attributable to the buildings. Viewing dairy building costs in light of current inventory values is especially pertinent if borrowed capital has been used for construc- tion purposes. Such a view also reflects the fact that the depreciated part of the initial investment is presumably recovered each year in /oOF FARMS 4-0 I- 30 20 10 DAIRY BUILDING COSTS PER DAIRY-ANIMAL UNIT {^| CHICAGO AREA K/.-.vl ST. LOUIS AREA $0 - 9.99 10 - 19.99 20 - 29.99 30 - 39.99 40 - 49.99 50 - 79.99 The two areas differed very little in average dairy-building cost per dairy- animal unit. (Fig. 9) 26 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, the form of earnings and it is not appropriate to charge interest on this portion. To obtain the true situation for a particular farm, interest costs are properly computed on the basis of the current inventory value of the buildings. This method is followed in this report. Dairy building costs with interest charges based on current in- ventory values ranged from a low of $3.32 to a high of nearly $80 per dairy-animal unit. These costs are shown without respect to age of buildings in Fig. 9. With the ordinary set of dairy buildings now on farms, the average annual cost would be about $26 per dairy-animal unit or $38 for each producing cow. Careful planning in future con- struction and consideration of the various types of low-cost dairy buildings available can reduce these costs substantially. Size of Business and Building Costs Depreciation and interest, comprising about 80 percent of build- ing costs, are tied directly to investment. It is logical to assume that building costs per dairy-animal unit would be related to size of herd much as was investment per dairy-animal unit. And it was found that building costs per animal unit were about the same on farms with large herds as on those with small. Costs per dairy-animal unit did not differ significantly among the four sizes of herds considered (Table 13) . In fact, because there were so many other factors influencing the rela- tionship, there was even less economy to scale in terms of annual cost than in terms of investment. For the farm as a whole, average building costs were slightly less than $3 per man-work unit but they varied erratically among groups of farms. Other measures of size of farm business such as total crop acres and number of productive animal units gave similar results. Cash farm and family living expenditures vary from farm to farm. These are expenses which have to be met, while farm building repairs can be postponed and often are. Management, types of buildings, and Table 13. Average Annual Dairy Building Costs per Farm and per Dairy-Animal Unit for Herds of Different Sizes Dairy-animal units per farm Costs for older buildings Costs for medium-aged buildings Costs for newer buildings Per farm Per unit Per farm Per unit Per farm Per unit 12.0- 19.9 . $268 $16 19 15 18 $380 497 663 950 $22 23 24 23 $671 928 960 1.525 $41 42 35 34 20.0- 23.9 405 24.0- 31.9 . 422 32.0-120.9.. . 832 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS $50 27 40 >" QJ I io-ao O z tr < u Q. UJ H 20 $ (t m40 - x ,-,- <: It t* D Z :: :: -.-. :- >; 20 o " . 1 y. 1 :< I .',* , . .. ' 1 n $200 TO 100 TO 50 TO TO TO -50 TO -100 TO -200 TO 299 199 99 49 -49 -99 -199 -399 NET RETURNS TO MANAGEMENT PER DAIRY-ANIMAL UNIT In 1947 dairy returns on only 52 percent of the farms included in this study met all costs. (Fig. 12) Net returns to management per dairy-animal unit (farm-grown feed charged at market prices) are shown in Fig. 12. 1 The two areas have been combined in this analysis as their returns to management were similar. First it is necessary to see how profitable dairying was under 1947 price conditions. Net returns to management were used in measuring financial success because they reflect the inclusion of all inputs other than management. To arrive at net returns, total costs were subtracted from gross returns. Gross returns were the value of dairy products and dairy stock sold and consumed on the farm plus the value of net in- ventory changes. Total costs equalled the sum of charges for the use of buildings, equipment, dairy stock, feed, and labor. Price-cost relationships were relatively unfavorable for dairying during 1947 because the price of feeds had increased much more than other prices and costs. Net returns to management varied widely, ranging from a loss of $333.39 to a gain of $203.31 per dairy-animal unit. On most farms where the dairy enterprise showed a loss the cash farm income still exceeded total cash expenses. This was often true 1 For an explanation of "farm-grown feed charged at market prices," see footnote on page 23. 1953} ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 31 even when dairying was the main enterprise. Such cash balances are, however, attributable not to efficiency of the dairy enterprise but to efficiency of crop and feed production and to the use of a large amount of unpaid family labor. It should be remembered also that all unpaid family labor and home-grown feeds were charged against the dairy enterprise at market value and therefore were reflected in the dairy accounting but not in the cash income of the farm. Dairy cows form a valuable addition to the general farm enterprise by providing a market for some nonsalable feeds and for family labor which might otherwise go unused and return nothing to the farm business. Strict enterprise accounting becomes somewhat artificial when the farm business is considered as a unit. Feed for dairy cattle is often produced for much less than its current market value. Farmers who have large amounts of nonsalable feeds and unused labor rightly con- sider the dairy enterprise an integrated part of their farm business. The dairy enterprise is a market which will pay more than production cost f or nonsalable feed and generally more than current prices for that part of it which is salable. To find the profit of the whole farm business the dairy enterprise must be considered as it ties in with other farm enterprises, not as a separate operating unit. If, however, the success of daiiying on individual farms is to be compared, the study must be made on the basis of enterprise analysis, the approach used in this report. In enterprise analysis all parts of the farm business are held constant except the one being studied; in this case, dairying. Standard prices must be used for all feed and labor whether furnished from farm sources or paid for in cash. In determin- ing the returns available to meet dairy building costs, the use of market prices for all feed and fixed wage rates assured comparability among farms. It is frequently held that building costs should be met out of what remains of dairy returns after other operating costs have been paid. And in fact, building costs may often be postponed and the whole enterprise may be operated for some time at little or no out-of-pocket expense for building upkeep. But eventually all costs must be met if the enterprise is to be justified. Therefore, charges adequate to cover the costs of each of the items entering into production should be made each year. Returns from dairying result from a combination of all inputs no returns would be obtained from any one of them in the absence of the others. Thus the returns available to meet a particular dairy cost were weighted according to the importance of that cost relative to total 32 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, dairy costs. For example, when dairy buildings accounted for 10 per- cent of total dairy costs, 10 percent of the gross dairy returns was considered the amount available to meet dairy building costs. No satisfactory method of determining what proportion of gross returns should be allotted to management was developed in this study. Therefore, any returns which might have been due management were left in gross returns and distributed to the other productive factors (dairy stock, feed, labor, etc.) in proportion to the cost of these inputs. For example, if buildings account for 10 percent of all dairy costs, then 10 percent of the returns available for management was included in the figure here used to represent returns available for buildings. When gross returns failed to equal total costs there were no returns to man- agement and losses were distributed among the various inputs in a similar manner. If the cost of buildings is proportionately higher than their con- tribution to returns, this allocative method will allow more funds for building costs than are necessary to provide essential functions. 1 ^Jow- ever, gross returns taken from a large number of records and dis- tributed in the above manner show what the farmers thought they needed and actually spent even though such an amount was more than enough to provide essential functions. One of the reasons for this disproportion is the fact that farmers have not applied advanced techniques in building construction as rapidly as they have applied new discoveries affecting crop varieties, use of fertilizer, disease and pest control, and animal breeding. Two conclusions may be drawn from Fig. 13. First, high gross returns were not dependent on high building costs. Although building costs were slightly lower where gross returns did not exceed $200 per dairy animal unit, such low returns undoubtedly reflected lack of good dairy management in general. As gross returns rose above $200 there was relatively little increase in dairy building costs per dairy-animal unit. Returns available to pay building costs increased about 45 per- cent in going from the second lowest to the highest income group, but building costs increased only 15 percent. Second, returns of about $300 per dairy-animal unit were necessary to cover all costs. Only about half the farms had such returns. As calculated here, returns available to meet building costs aver- aged $25.53 and $27.04 per dairy-animal unit in the Chicago and St. Louis areas. Building costs per dairy-animal unit were $25.87 in the 1 In the residual method sometimes used, costs of all other items are first deducted leaving the remainder, if any. to meet building costs. 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 33 ABLE AND BUILDING RY-ANIMAL UNIT -v ro u> * o o c m BUILDIK RETURt G ^S 1 CO* AV/ >TS MLA 1 I -- *% Y% % y& '% XX ^ ^ % XX _ I \ RETURNS AVAIL COSTS PER DA O $101- 201- 251- 301- 351- 200 250 300 350 500 GROSS RETURNS PER DAIRY- ANIMAL UNIT High returns from dairying do not depend on high building costs. As gross returns rose from $200 to $500 per dairy-animal unit, there was little change in building costs. (Fig. 13) Chicago area and $26.74 in the St. Louis area. Thus, average dairy returns in both areas were such that little or no margin was left after paying all costs other than management. INVENTORY OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES One of the original purposes of this study was to determine the effects of management practices on dairy returns. With this in mind farmers were interviewed concerning practices which, on the basis of experience, were believed to influence success in a dairy enterprise. These were scored individually and summarized in major groups. Most of the important aspects of dairy management were con- sidered in this study. It was impossible to evaluate them all since man- agement practices encompass the selection of dairy animals, types of buildings, and kinds of feed; the degree to which all of these are used; the allocation and combination of the various means at hand ; and all of the marketing problems associated with the dairy enterprise. Both observation and judgment show that use of buildings and management cannot be separated. Good management can often com- 34 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, pensate to some extent for the lack of good buildings. However, build- ings which are properly designed and located aid in attaining efficient management. Since management reaches into every phase of dairy operations and relates to investments, costs, and all other inputs, individual practices could not be assigned values which would give a true picture of their worth in a composite rating such as that used for evaluating the physi- cal characteristics of buildings. 1 Without such a composite measure, management's effect on dairy returns could not be determined through correlations. However, the composite scores of ratings given to various practices and gathered into major groups reveal the areas in which Table 14. Ratings for Specified Dairy Management Practices Number of farms with rating of 1.0 1.25-2.0 2.25-3.0 3.25-4.0 4.25-5.0 Utilization of space 42 224 74 10 Manner of handling cows 164 170 14 2 3 254 79 14 Breeding 32 188 118 1 11 Cleanliness of cows 80 40 157 40 33 14 267 38 22 9 Milking practices 18 79 124 117 12 Cleanliness of milkhouse 91 170 46 34 9 Cleanliness of equipment. . . 261 56 24 9 Milk cooling 126 67 145 5 7 10 81 63 70 126 Pasture-management practices ... 52 132 79 2 85 Protein content in ration" 20 133 100 65 32 a The standard used for protein content varied with the type of roughage. Legume hay was fed on 268 farms and mixed hay on 82. farmers were following good management practices and those in which their practices could be improved. The frequency of occurrence at different levels for most of the important dairy management practices is shown in Table 14. The numerical rating of 1.0 means that a particular practice met the standard. Ratings higher than 1.0 denote successively poorer manage- ment for any particular item. For example, ten dairymen who varied the grain feeding rate according to the production of each cow re- ceived ratings of 1.0, but 126 were given ratings between 4.25 and 5.0 because they fed equal amounts to all cows. Use of space. When use of building space was surveyed, 328 of 350 dairymen were found either wasting space or crowding their cows 1 See page 5 for description of composite rating of physical characteristics of buildings. 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 35 (Table 14). Waste and shortage of space in relation to the needs of the milking herd are brought out in the following tabulation: Considerable Moderate Little Total Waste space, farms 106 19 10 135 Shortage of space, farms 115 60 18 193 Total 221 79 28 328 Health of stock. The types of health problems found on these farms, some of which may relate to inadequacies of building arrange- ment or construction, are indicated in Table 15. Of the 510 death losses shown in Table 15, 150 were cows from the milking herd. In addition, 1,647 milk cows from a total of approxi- mately 7,500 were disposed of during the year. Culling for age and Table 15. Animal Health, Nature of Veterinary Services, and Causes of Death Losses Item Number of farms reporting health problem Number of veterinary service calls reported Number of animals reported lost through death 108 29 10 85 Bang's disease 100 42b 118 106 d 6 103 8 62 8 Injury or poisoning 5 9 43* Bloat 4 26 Miscellaneous 14 175 43 23 67 Includes 20 recognized cases of mastitis. b Only one was from the milking herd. c Includes 35 recognized cases of milk fever. d Includes 14 recognized cases of milk fever; 37 of the animals that died were cows from the milking herd. Only three were from the milking herd. ' Thirty-five were from the milking herd. Includes all vaccinations and tests. low production accounted for 90 percent of the cows sold; disease, injuries, and miscellaneous causes for the remainder. About 25 per- cent of the cows carried in the milking herds on these farms were disposed of or lost during the year. Breeding methods. In the general move toward high production, some drastic changes in breeding methods have occurred in recent years. The following tabulation indicates the number of herds using herd sires and those using artificial insemination. 36 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, Herd sire Proven 52 Not proven 149 Artificial insemination For complete herd 149 For half of the herd 50 For less than half 5 Not at all 146 Farmers who had shifted completely to the use of artificial insem- ination were not questioned as to the record of the sire. Included among the 52 proven sires are four which are not proven but of known high-producing ancestry. Production records. Although for determining the most profitable grain-feeding rate, production records for each cow are essential, only 65 farms had adequate records. Forty-nine had partial records while 236 had none for individual cows. Milking machine fime. The length of time milking machines are allowed to remain attached influences both the health and production of cows. Too short a period will necessitate hand-stripping. Excessively long periods may cause damage to the udder. On the farms studied milking machines were reported to have been left on the cows for the following lengths of time: Minutes attached Number of farms Minutes attached Number of farms Less than 3.0 13 4.1 to 5.0 68 3.0 to 3.5 129 5.1 to 6.0 7 3.6 to 4.0 115 More than 6.0 2 The average time per cow for all farms using milking machines was 3.9 minutes. In 16 dairies the cows were entirely hand-milked. Table 16. Farms Indicating Premilking and Milking Practices That Are Presumed to Influence Cleanliness and Quality of Milk Clip Use Pour Sterilize Use r- f udders Wash strip Hand milk teat cups Hand lime Frequency of practice and udderga ^ stripb in (l ^ milk on flanks barn c cow) floor (number of farms) 185 263 75 104 169 145 16 265 Occasional ... 17 22 22 67 11 85 d 88 13 148 65 253 179 170 120 e 246 72 Total . . . . . 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 " Separate cloth used for each cow on 118 farms. b Strippings added to milk on 169 farms. c An undesirable practice. d More than one cow milked between sterilizations. e Sterilizing solution not used. 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTEBISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 37 Sanitation. The production of high-quality milk requires care in both the premilking and the milking operations. Table 16 shows how frequently some of the more important procedures were followed. Also, sanitary conditions in the milkhouse must be maintained. Besides keeping the milkhouse clean, this requires sterilization of equipment and cooling of milk. Practices followed in this portion of the sanitation program are indicated below: Equipment washed and rinsed Number of farms Boiling water with sterilizing solution 64 Only boiling water 9 Cold water with sterilizing solution 4 Only cold water 6 Water Ii5 with sterilizing solution 252 Only water at 115 15 Equipment protected between milkings Kept in a sterile chamber 160 Inverted in a protected place 133 Inadequately protected 57 Milk taken to milkhouse Immediately 273 After some delay 77 Milk cooled Immediately 233 Within an hour 103 After an hour 14 Three farms used live steam in addition to water at not less than 115. PRESENT DAIRY BUILDINGS AND THEIR PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS In measuring those details of construction and arrangement that are presumed to contribute to the success of the dairy enterprise and in dealing with them in this study, it was necessary to develop a rating procedure that evaluated both individual building characteristics and the dairy building organization as a whole. Detailed information regarding specific features was recorded at the farms and used in developing the ratings. The score given to each feature represented the degree of usefulness of that feature relative to the standard set in the rating procedure previously described (see page 5). The total rating for each set of farm dairy buildings and their associated facilities covers: (1) production, health, and safety of cows; (2) efficiency of chore operations and the safety of the operator; and (3) quality of milk. 38 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, Features of Dairy Buildings and Related Facilities The different building characteristics were rated from 1.0 to 5.0 with 1.0 representing the standard and higher numbers, lower stand- ards. For example, dirt floors in the milking area, considered one of the most undesirable types of flooring in that area, were rated 5.0. A frequency distribution of the farms given various ratings for different items is shown in Table 17. In arriving at ratings on building characteristics and facilities a Table 17. Number of Farms Given Specified Ratings for Different Functional Characteristics of Dairy Buildings and Associated Facilities Number of farms with ratings of Functional characteristic 8 1.0 1.25-2.0 2.25-3.0 3.25-4.0 4.25-5.0 Items pertaining to production, health, and safety of cows Stall size 23 108 153 58 8 Manger and bunks 57 102 155 28 8 Alleys 68 90 104 66 22 Ceiling height 214 79 29 15 13 Young stock space 75 173 83 17 2 Floor material 237 78 9 4 22 Floor condition 164 140 17 18 11 Curb 210 100 12 14 14 Gutter 11 114 164 48 13 Walls 59 211 47 26 7 Gates and doors 134 32 100 68 16 Drafts 81 208 45 15 1 Condensation 66 233 49 1 1 Barn odors 120 212 14 2 2 Ventilation 9 189 138 12 2 Protection for concentrates 27 217 77 27 2 Roughage facilities 11 263 74 2 Water protection 38 116 111 59 26 Water adequacy 64 174 88 24 Items pertaining to chore-labor efficiency and safety of operator External layout 10 82 134 123 1 Handling cows 42 254 47 7 Handling milk 33 154 64 62 37 Feed preparation and feeding 14 194 102 38 2 Cleaning operations 13 154 65 18 100 Natural lighting .. ... 15 210 79 34 12 Artificial lighting 4 191 112 37 6 Bull pen 147 74 33 32 64 Electrical wiring 84 234 27 5 Other 5 188 113 37 7 Items pertaining to quality of milk Clean buildings... ... 23 231 58 22 16 Clean cows 1 54 1 128 166 Cooling facilities 1 111 40 187 11 Facilities for washing and sterilizing 250 67 24 8 1 Water disposal 115 97 48 34 56 Utensils 144 172 30 4 Each item represents a summary of several elements for which data were obtained. 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 39 great many details not shown in the tables had to be considered. Some of the facts gathered are discussed below. Roughage facilities. Ratings were assigned to roughage facilities on the various farms (Table 17). These were based on the general principle that quality of roughage is affected by the method of curing and type of storage. It was found that of 350 dairy farmers, only 17 used any method of artificial curing, the remainder depending on curing their hay in the field. Hay was stored so as to obtain adequate protection from the weather on 327 farms and for partial protection on 13 farms. Only 10 farmers stacked hay in the open. One or more upright silos were found on 280 farms. There was only one pit and one trench silo. Water facilities. These were rated (Table 17) with the fact in mind that water for the dairy herd should be plentiful and easily accessible at all times. Only 8 farms lacked an adequate supply of water, but accessibility was difficult on 65 farms while distribution was poor on 163. On 191 farms the approach to water was muddy, generally unclean, or otherwise undesirable. In addition the water supply on over 200 farms was not adequately protected from accumu- lation of foreign material. Tank heaters were present on 215 farms. Ventilation. On 169 farms ventilation (Table 17) was obtained through windows hinged at the bottom so that no draft blew on the animals. Mechanical devices for providing fresh air were in use on 45 farms. There were 136 farms that relied on miscellaneous openings such as hay chutes, silo chutes, small doors, and, to a large extent, cracks in the walls. The standard for evaluating ventilation was whether fresh air was obtained without drafts, and beyond that no consideration was given to special devices. Operating efficiency. The distances farmers travel in doing dairy chores provide one measure of chore-labor efficiency (Table 18) . Such distances are determined chiefly by the physical arrangements of the dairy buildings but may be modified by the work methods of the operators. Some of the farmers included in this study had to contend with poorly arranged buildings, but they had devised ways of saving steps so that they got more work done in less time and with less expenditure of energy than many who had better facilities. However, the layout and interior arrangements of dairy buildings should be planned so that necessary work may be done easily. Obviously the 40 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, 1 'g OOOOOOOO--<<3> 1 2 o T3 , o 8 OOOOOOi-H--i"TO 3 ~3 ' I OOOOOOOOOO5 a 1 _ 1 a 3 P s S (NlNOOOOOOINt^ 1 1 * [ g d 3 2 i ) 1 TO TO o M >*> s a Q 4 3 g 2 0-O^OCO^ffliN'O 5 } J rt ^ rt ^ .2 ^J a c 5 ^ 'o 3 y C^ C^COOiO^HOt* I) CCOO ft 4 15 ^ o _fl k o 1 H i s OiO^^CO^-*Tj< o -4 03 ^ iC iO iO >-H (N I-H ^ o i 5 ? 3 4 fl> fj 8 K 3 4 s 1 22 2S " S " 1 a 4 CO ft o J > 3 > g 2 IN S S C I: | 8 8 g 8 S _o 3 "S 4 a O lOOSOOfNOOt^-t^OOCOO o J S ^^sss^^ss^ Q c J o -4 |4 3 2 S3 in E -g 45 5 *O GJ : ^ a ; u fl 5 o '. m a J, -S M d H t- fc- _o 43 d 09 J2 C 3 s H u u n oi > o 43 c ' fcO b - 5 S -J > 1C 0> O *"* c c fl 1 ft O 5 ^ -i^ O3 i *** "*^ 00 -M M a S 5 fe 3 ^^ SflaS ^ff^tn S S fl 5 a) ^2 1 s.sS "1 | o | g 1 1 || s^ S M S O ^ifli o -S Z* ft & "*^ *S o o f 5 || 111 1 | 1 tf ^ ^ 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 41 operator who has managed to do well in spite of inconveniences will be even more efficient in a new or remodeled building, the functional arrangement of which has been carefully considered. Sanitation. Facilities presumed to affect quality of milk are covered in general in Table 17. Not specifically listed but definitely helpful in keeping the herd and barn clean is an impervious platform outside the cow entrance. Concrete or semi-impervious platforms were found on 199 and 33 farms respectively. One hundred and twenty-eight had no provision of this nature. Table 19 presents a detailed evaluation of some of the cleaning problems covered generally in Table 17. Table 19. General Status of Features of Buildings and Other Facilities Related to Cleaning Operations Good Fair Poor Building material and construction Stalls. . . 303 (number of farms) 14 33 7 27 22 42 39 59 12 154 152>> 42>> 29 d 123 94 78 350 346 350 350 335" 350 335 350 350 312 Alleys 286 252 Milkhouse 169 Piped water in barn 198 b 293 b 198 C 178 a Fifteen had no milkhouse. b "Good" and "Poor" for these items mean piped water was supplied or was not supplied, respectively. c Fifteen of these farms had mechanical cleaners, 91 had litter carriers, and 92 had "drive-in" arrangements. d These farms used a cart or wheelbarrow. These farms used hand methods only without benefit of cart, wheelbarrow, or "drive-in" arrangements. One hundred and sixty-one farms had no equipment for cleaning cows such as clippers, hose, washrack, and cart for carrying washing solutions. Clippers alone were used on 117 farms, 61 farms had added a cart, 11 used one of the single items other than clippers. Facilities for cooling milk were scored primarily according to the type of cooling system and adequacy of the cooling tanks. A tank which could hold the production of one day was considered adequate. Such tanks with refrigeration equipment were found on 106 farms. Tanks alone were found on 143 farms; refrigeration equipment on 38. Fourteen farms had some combination of surface cooler, walk-in refrigerator, and tank of adequate size, while 49 farms had no cooling facilities. 42 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, For a clean milkhouse good drainage is essential. Of the 335 milk- houses, 294 had built-in drains; 81, however, were inadequate in size or poorly constructed. On 41 farms there were no provisions for drainage. The drain outlet was at least 100 feet from the milkhouse on 130 farms, but on 132 it emptied just outside the milkhouse wall. For the remaining 32 farms, the drain emptied somewhere between the milkhouse and 100 feet from the wall. Facilities for washing and sterilizing utensils on 250 farms included hot water, chemicals, brushes, and at least two washing compartments. The first three of these items were found on 60 farms, while one or two were present on 34 farms. Only 6 farms had no facilities for washing and sterilizing utensils. In scoring utensils the following points were considered: corrosion- proof metal, flush soldered joints, ease of cleaning, and small-mouth pails. Only 33 farms met less than three of these specifications, small- mouth pails being most frequently lacking. Types of Buildings and Changes Most Desired by Farmers The type of building influences the functional character of the building, but there is a wider range among characteristics within a given type of building than there is among types. Many of the barns examined in this study were built for other purposes than dairy- ing. Many had undergone changes and were difficult to classify as to type. For example, many arrangements approaching loose housing consisted of a barn with a stall for each cow plus a shed to which cows had access when not in stalls. Such an arrangement is neither a conventional stall barn nor a true loose housing system and lacks many of the advantages of both types. All but 56 of the farms had some type of stall-barn arrangement. These included: 101 1-row stall barns; 75 2-row stall, face-in barns; 108 2-row stall, face-out barns; and 10 with more than 2 rows of stalls. Fifty-six farms had provided loose housing for the cows, but many of them had retained stalls for all producing cows. None of these farms could properly be classified as having a complete loose housing system. Each of the operators of the 350 farms studied was asked a series of questions determined in advance to learn: (1) definite changes planned for the near future and (2) changes not projected but which the farmer would make if he w r ere starting from the beginning. Some of the latter modifications could, no doubt, be accomplished by re- modeling, but at the time of this survey these particular farmers were 1953} ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 43 Table 20. New or Remodeled Buildings and Other Facilities Planned or Wanted by Farmers Answering Questionnaire New construction Remodeling* Building or facility Planned Wanted but not yet planned Planned Wanted but not yet planned Dairy barn 12 b (number of farmers) 13b 20 26< 3 25' 5 9 4<> 1 4 2 3 2 2 1 19 59 6 6 22 1 '3< 9 Loose housing barn 7 C 10 Shed for young stock 3 Hay shed 4 Silo.... 2 Surface lots or approaches 13 6 Additional equipment .... 19 a Would not involve changes from the existing type of structure. b Not determined whether these would involve basic changes in building type. c Would involve a change from the existing type of structure. d Two of these would involve relocation. Eighteen of these would involve relocation. ' All of these would involve relocation. not considering remodeling. Two hundred and two farmers responded (Table 20). In addition to the remodeling indicated in the table, major repairs were planned for 17 barns. The general trend of changes in barns as indicated by answers to the questionnaire was toward loose housing. Although only 56 farmers had any type of loose housing in 1947, 7 farmers planned to construct loose housing barns and 25 wanted such structures although they had no definite plans for building them. Because of the trend away from loose hay many of the old barn lofts were found to be largely waste space. Loose hay was fed exclu- sively on only 52 farms in this study, chopped hay on 57, and baled hay on 170. The remaining 70 farms used various combinations of baled, chopped, and loose hay. This general tendency away from loose hay to forms more easily stored makes the use of one-story barns practical. General structural level, a classification based on material and quality of construction used in buildings, indicates the repairs and new construction that will be needed in the next few years. 1 Dairy barns on 153 farms were of the highest structural level, 177 were intermediate, and 20 were low. The structural level of milkhouses was 1 For explanation of the classification of dairy barns according to structural level see footnote on page 17. 44 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, high in 164 instances, intermediate in 144, and low in 9. On 18 farms the milkhouse was either inside the barn or equipment was cleaned in the residence; 15 farms had no milkhouse. Condition as well as structural level is indicative of future needs for repairs or new construction (Table 21). Answers from farmers regarding changes planned or desired re- vealed a considerable amount of uncertainty as to types of building arrangement and their advantages and disadvantages. Apparently, Table 21. General Condition of Principal Dairy Buildings Part of building Good Fair Poor Barn Milkhouse Barn Milkhouse Barn Milkhouse Foundation 250 265 228 234 247 (number of farms) 90 45 69 62 134 74 93 61 10 18 22 20 7 27 9 9 Floor.. 263 Walls 194 Roof. . 237 however, farmers were well aware of most of the improvements in crop varieties and in practices in crop and livestock production. Their lack of information on building developments is not hard to understand. Farm buildings once constructed have to be used largely as they stand and their fixed character retards the response of their owners to new ideas, but each year presents a new opportunity for improved cultural practices. In addition farmers do not always have the best information available for planning new or remodeled structures. Even construction types classified in the lowest group (footnote on page 17) may attain reasonable permanency in the future through new developments in loose housing, for example the use of pole frame structures for cattle shelter. Farmers in general recognize the importance of certain features in dairy buildings: sufficient space per cow, fresh air without drafts in enclosed buildings, clean, convenient, and adequate storage for feed, a good water supply, equipment for efficient cleaning, and other such sanitary provisions as help insure high-quality milk. Fortunately buildings that provide all these features can be built for less than the cost of many inferior buildings. In this study dairy buildings were as often rated low on farms where the building investment and main- tenance cost per dairy animal unit were high as on farms where they were low. 1963] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 45 SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING DAIRY BUILDINGS After a farmer recognizes that his dairy buildings need remodeling or that he should erect new ones, his problem is one of deciding on plans. The two-story barn of expensive materials and permanent con- struction is not a satisfactory answer for most farmers. Modern engi- neering offers other solutions which should be considered. Relative Advantages of Loose Housing and Stall Barns A loose housing system has the advantages of being very flexible and relatively inexpensive. If the owner wishes to work alone he can care for a larger herd than is ordinarily possible with a conventional stall barn, providing, of course, that the system is well-arranged. When need arises, he can readily convert from dairying to other types of livestock enterprises. Since loose housing is less expensive than most stall barns, many farmers who could not otherwise afford the initial expense of starting a dairy business, can build a loose housing system. Manure can be handled more simply in a loose Sousing system than in a conventional stall barn, and because much of it is protected from the weather, its fertility value will be high. It can be removed with a tractor-mounted power lift at a lower cost than can be attained in a stall barn with either hand labor or power equipment. It can be taken from the barn to the fields a few times each year, usually at the convenience of the operator. Loose housing has other advantages such as: simpler sanitation in the milking area, better herd health, a longer productive life for the cows, and less possibility of loss of animals by fire. 1 Although the health of the animals is benefited by the open nature of loose housing, the operator will be uncomfortable in cold weather unless heaters are installed in the milking area and in the milkroom. In the stall barn, however, the cow area when closed is usually warm enough for the operator, but some dependable provision for ventilation will be necessary to control humidity and prevent too high a tempera- ture in hot weather. Usually about 20 percent more bedding has been used with loose housing than with the stall barn. In areas where there is a shortage of crop byproducts, this becomes a problem. However, with best 1 For a more complete discussion of the merits of loose housing, see U. S. Dept. Agr. Information Bui. 98, "Loose Housing for Dairy Cattle," and Illinois Circular 694, "Loose Housing for the Farm Dairy." The first is available on request from the U. S. Department of Agriculture; the second from the College of Agriculture, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. 46 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, arrangement and good management the bedding requirements may be little more or even less than for stall barns. A frequent criticism of loose housing is that cows do not have time to eat their grain. However, experience has shown that cows will speed up their rate of eating grain when time is limited. One efficient operator using two bucket-type machines in milking room arrangements such as shown in Fig. 22 can milk 25 to 30 cows per hour. The cows would then have 6 to 8 minutes for eating grain, time considered adequate by many herdsmen. If more time is desired, the order of milking opera- tions can be changed or an extra stall be added to the milking room. There are some dairymen whose needs are best suited by stall barns. Those with purebred cattle sometimes prefer to keep their cows in stanchions for convenience in showing them to prospective buyers. Owners who are interested in their cows as "show animals" do not want to dehorn them. In a loose housing system dehorning is most desirable and usually necessary to prevent injuries. When remodeling a stall barn to comply with Grade A milk regu- lations, the oTOer may find retaining the conventional system more economical. Before deciding to change, he should consider the condi- tion of the permanent features, the cost of changing them, the general layout, and the availability of the additional ground space needed for loose housing. If a stall barn is preferred, it may be a one-story struc- ture. One-story plans are suitable for loose housing or stall barns if there is adequate space in the farmstead. (See Figs. 20 and 21.) Three specific cases were selected from the farms surveyed for de- tailed study and illustration: a good stall barn, a poor stall barn, and a remodeled loose housing system. The text and the accompanying illustrations show the good and bad points of each. Possible improve- ments are also indicated. To supplement these actual cases, two plans, one for a one-story stall barn and one for a loose housing system, are also illustrated and discussed. A Good Stall Barn One of the best stall barn arrangements observed in this survey is that shown in Fig. 14. Good features include: (1) feed storages conveniently located nearly in the center of the barn on one side and overhead in the loft; (2) a milkhouse conveniently located almost in the center of the opposite side; (3) a center cross alley well placed with reference to the feed storage, the stall area, and the milkhouse; (4) room for more labor-saving equipment such as a gutter cleaner and silo unloader if desired. 1953} ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 47 -i WATER COCJLER ,-^HEATER A good stall barn for 28 cows. Cross alleys and central location of milkhouse and feed room permit efficient operation. Improvements could be made by adding straw and hay chutes and by changing the milkhouse arrangement as shown by dotted lines. (Fig. 14) 48 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, Minor improvements suggested. Changes could be made which would improve this building. (1) An additional cross alley at the north end of the barn could save as much as 15 percent of the travel necessary for feeding, but the operator would have to decide whether the loss o.f two stalls (where the cross alley would be located) would be offset by greater efficiency in feeding. (2) For a minimum of travel for hay feeding there should be at least one, and preferably two, hay chutes properly spaced above each feed alley. (3) Moving the present straw chute to the center of the north litter alley and adding another in the middle of the south alley would greatly facilitate the handling of bedding. If convenient space for calves and heifers is desired, the dairy barn itself might be extended. Pens at either end of the stall area would be satisfactory and convenient. Attaching another structure to one side or to the end would decrease the window space in the dairy barn and make feeding and caring for young stock more difficult. Some changes would be needed if the milkroom were to be made to comply with Illinois Grade A milk regulations. These require a dis- tance of 6 feet between vestibule doors and here there are only 4 feet. To improve the milkhouse the outside vestibule door should be elim- inated and the vestibule arranged as indicated by the dotted lines in Fig. 14. It would also be desirable to add a window in the east wall of the milkroom and to rearrange the water heater, vats, and can rack to conform to the change in location of the inner wall. Estimates of the cost of making these improvements are presented later in this section. A Poor Stall Barn The layout of another stall barn found in this study is illustrated in Fig. 15. This is in many ways a poorly arranged building, neither well-lighted nor convenient. The long axis runs east and west, resulting in less sunlight than if the axis ran north and south. Natural lighting is reduced by the three attached buildings (scale house, hog shelter, and south wing) that cover one-half the perimeter of the dairy barn. Although the window area is almost adequate, this arrangement prevents an even distribu- tion of light. The outside barn width of 28% feet is about 8 feet too narrow for a drive-through arrangement. Stalls are only 3 feet wide, whereas they should be 3 feet 6 inches or more. The cross alley width is 7 feet although 4 feet would have been ample. The litter and the feed alleys 19681 ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 49 o a*' 8"! 'C w bo bo >> Ot- w .> ^ b rt T Es bo "o ^ rt I l^-g rt rt ^ u I ill SOP -M o J3 o S J3 fc .. w P rt i- C S^ 50 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 51 are too narrow; the latter will not permit the use of a feed cart. Hay chutes are not conveniently located. When straw is stored in the loft it must be dropped through a hay chute. Travel distances are excessive. The milkhouse is 30 feet west of the south wing. The silo is too far from the feeding area and the silage can be brought only to the end of the feed alleys with the feed cart. The various areas of the building are not well assigned. The south wing is not used to fullest advantage. The pens in the west end of the building are better suited for small calves but are used instead for miscellaneous purposes. Part of the area adjacent to the east end of the stalls is used for hogs. Remodeling suggestions. This barn might be remodeled as a stall barn or converted into a loose housing system. The latter would be the more feasible and less expensive way of improving the arrange- ment of the work areas and saving labor in the handling of the herd. In Fig. 16 the necessary changes are shown. They include: 1. Removing stalls, mangers, and also the pens at the west end, the wall between the stall area and the hog pen on the east end, and part of the wall common to the south wing; filling in gutters, and changing the pens and stalls in the south wing; 2. Widening some doors to accommodate a tractor and manure spreader; 3. Adding a hay chute to the feeding area ; 4. Adding a complete three-in-line 1 tandem milking plant to the west end. The second alternative of improving the existing structure for con- tinued use as a stall barn would leave much to be desired, but it is presented here for purposes of comparison (Fig. 17). The principal difficulty is the narrowness of the barn, which reduces the alley width and leaves the stalls too short for large cows. The center alley might be cut to 6 feet to allow for longer stalls. Major changes in the barn shown in Fig. 15 would provide for three more cows and increase the size of the stalls on the north side, those on the south being kept for heifers and small cows. The 12 stalls on the north would be reduced to 10, but 5 new stalls would be added 1 For purposes of illustration, three-in-line tandem milking plants were added to the loose housing systems shown in Figs. 16 and 21. Alternative milking room arrangements as shown in Fig. 22, page 62, may be selected to fit the size of herd, general building arrangement, and preferences of the operator. 52 BULLETIN No. 570 [.November, 1953} ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHAKACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 63 by converting part of the space now used by hogs into an additional cow stall area. The remainder of this space would be used for calf or maternity pens with movable panels. The hogs would be moved to the old attached south wing where they could be fed on the paved area south of the barn. The present scale house would be used for feed grinding and storage of ground feed. The milkhouse would be moved and attached to the north side of the barn or a new one built as shown in Fig. 17. A more central location would be preferable, but would involve moving the scale house. One of the minor changes would be widening the door at point A by 2 feet so that the spreader could be backed into the barn through the door and an overhead litter carrier be used for cleaning. A cross alley 4 feet wide should be left between the old and new stall sections to permit use of a silage cart. The cross alley at the west end should be reduced to 4% feet in width to permit enlargement of the pens in the west end. These would then be of ample size for use as maternity or calf pens. Another hay chute should be provided on the north side. More windows should be added in the north wall of the east end section. Remodeling to Improve Loose Housing None of the loose housing observed on the farms in this survey was newly constructed. That found consisted of sheds or areas for feeding roughage and for bedding while a part or all of the original barn was retained for use as a milking room. One farm was selected from the survey to illustrate the results of inadequate planning (Fig. 18) . In remodeling this barn the owner kept costs low largely by limit- ing new construction to a milking room and milkhouse. For no more than he spent, perhaps for less, he could have built a milking room with fewer stalls, such as shown in Fig. 19, more conveniently located with reference to the feeding and resting area. 2 In this elevated stall type, one operator with two bucket-type machines can milk 25 to 30 cows per hour more easily and with less travel than in the abreast type (Fig. 18) in which the maximum rate of milking is 18 to 20 cows per hour. Such an arrangement would have reduced the owner's direct 1 A second milkroom such as shown in Fig. 18 is not required by the Illinois Grade A law unless raw milk is to be sold for fluid consumption. 'The U-tandem 4-stall arrangement was selected rather than the in-line tandem because it fitted the space available and also the particular arrangement of the milking area. 54 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, ' 0" I PEN 1 ^ HORJ ^ E STALLS s, FEEDING AND RESTING AREA 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 55 and indirect operating costs. It would not, however, be economical for him to change now. Certain improvements in the resting and feeding areas could still be made economically. The horse stalls and granary could be removed, freeing this space for calves, a maternity pen, and for a resting area. OPTIONAL HOLDING AREA FOR RIGHT SIDE MILKING Further improvements for the loose housing arrangement of Fig. 18. The elevated-stall milking room and milkhouse shown here would cost less and be more convenient. Steps or a ramp should be built in the enclosed passage at the cow entrance and a ramp at the exit. (Fig. 19) 56 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, In any case, the resting area should be separated from the feeding area. This could be accomplished by means of a gate or movable panel, an open passage being left between the two areas so that the cows can move freely between them at all times. Moving the feed bunk to the east wall would provide some resting area in the space now occupied by and adjacent to the west end of the bunk. A 10-foot sliding door on the north side of the resting area would make removing the manure easier. These changes would provide 50 square feet of resting area per cow, sufficient for loose housing, and at the same time reduce chore labor substantially (Table 22). The floor of the resting area should have at least an 8-inch fill of well-tamped earth. The feeding area should be paved to permit clean- ing with a tractor and scraper blade. A water cup should be installed in the feeding area in the south wall as indicated in Fig. 19. Had the barn been remodeled as indicated in Fig. 19, the cows would have entered the milking area in a way that would have required them to be milked from the left side. Many cows in stall barns are accustomed to this position, and all can be trained for it. But if right-hand milking is preferred, a holding pen can be built adjacent to the south side of the milking room. The cows would then go through the milking room in the opposite direction and be milked from the right. Plan for a One-Story Stall Barn One-story stall barns can be built and operated at less cost than many of the two-story barns commonly found. They are less expen- sive to build because they do not need extra bracing and flooring to support overhead storage. In a time-and-travel study of a two-story barn, two efficient operators worked full time to milk 22.8 cows an hour. A well-arranged one-story stall barn, with labor-saving equip- ment impossible in the old barn, was built nearby. In the new barn one of the original operators was able to milk the same herd at the rate of 20.6 cows per hour with less effort. Thus nearly half the labor cost was saved. The old barn was continued in use for storage of feed and bedding and for calf and maternity pens. A good, low-cost, one-story stall barn for 10 cows is illustrated in Fig. 20. In most instances, a one-story barn will be more functional and more easily enlarged than a two-story barn. In the one shown in Fig. 20 the work areas are conveniently located. Feed and bedding storage begins at the ground level. The one-slope roof slants toward the milkroom and rain water is carried away from the open lot. As 1963] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 57 NORTH 5 STALLS 5 STALLS FEED ALLEY FEED BIN HAY - BEDDING - FEED STORAGE A one-story small stall barn, that can be expanded to 20 stalls. (Fig. 20) the herd increases, four or five stalls may be added as needed to either end without lowering the efficiency of the arrangement appre- ciably. But if eight or ten stalls are added, an equal number should be placed at each end to keep the milkhouse centrally located. Plan for a One-Operator Loose Housing Dairy None of the 350 farmers studied had a complete loose housing system, but many of them were interested in building one later. The arrangement illustrated in Fig. 21 was chosen because it combines many of the features it would be desirable for these farmers to have and because it is economical and functional. The plan as shown is for one operator, two bucket-type machines or three machines with piped milk, and a herd of 25 to 30 cows. For larger herds a second operator and more machines can be added and a U-shaped milking room with four or five stalls can be substituted for the three-in-line type shown. A U-shaped milking room also could be placed between the two wings of this dairy plant instead of being located as shown in Fig. 21. 58 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, t Bff JJ , fil "-*f Ul K. UJ T Sri j 5 w!-l-K Ul o a N 3 d o V3HV 9NIQ10H QNV ONIQ33J o _l 10 an QNnoao woaj AVH o To 1953] ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 59 This is a one-story dairy plant with all feed storage on the ground. The roof of each wing slopes away from the open lot. That part of the lot adjacent to the feeding and resting areas, the feeding area, and the feed alleys should be paved, but other pavement is optional. Six to 8 inches of well-packed earth is sufficient fill in the resting area. Some prefer putting an inch or two of crushed limestone on top of this fill. In the feeding area the floor slopes upward from grade level at the end near the water cup to 22 inches above grade level at the milking-room entrance. This slope takes the place of a ramp from the feeding area to the milking room which is 30 inches above the grade level. Without the obstruction of a concrete ramp the feeding area can be more easily cleaned with a tractor and scraper blade. The cows step up 8 inches from the feeding area into the milking room. A ramp is provided for the cow exit from the milking room into the resting area. If more calf and maternity pens are needed, the feeding-area wing can be extended. The calf and maternity pens have movable panels to allow for expansion and for removal of manure with power equipment. Chore Time and Travel Under Different Arrangements The work habits of the operator, his rate of walking, the way he plans to avoid unnecessary steps, and the various minor devices he uses often have the greatest effect in making chore labor efficient. The relative merits of different arrangements with respect to their effect on chore-labor efficiency may be determined by showing distances that would have to be traveled by a worker following stated work habits (Table 22). There would, of course, be a wide range in the time required by different operators working with the same arrangements. Estimated Construction and Remodeling Costs In estimating the outlay necessary for building or remodeling a given dairy building, definite assumptions were made as to price levels, the kind and quality of materials used, the general level of construc- tion, the extent to which hired labor would be employed, the speed of the workers, the wage rate, and other items. Since many of these circumstances are certain to be different when any of these struc- tures are actually built, the final cost may vary as much as 30 percent from these estimated costs. Estimates such as these are useful as indi- cators of the relative costs of different arrangements, not as guides to be followed literally by the man who wants to build. 60 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, 3 o S2 2S So 52 1 H 1 M) B .Si M c ;g C fl S O3 COCO I s -- CD N CO c3 i CO N 3 *" 1 | ^ JS o 6 M a jss > CO ^< iO NOO iCi-M S fe a * S < ^ 3 S g a) a" Si o5 tZ M ^V CO S - 13 -2 _a _C o) a a> ft *> -g M C o 1 o ^1 t- g NW CON O(N to w . M 73 ^ B OJ o 2 g 03 3 M 11 a "to u O a 1 J2 S 13 g 11 0500 coco oioo Wco CNN CNN CO*-* NN > 73 <-n "^ S o. S a tf O 03 8 'o o o a t, J3 * "S '5 .o *" g a a "S i* IH a 1 O 2- - 2 S. "S g J- ft -s 11 D W to C *4H M S v Ui S ">, J3 -O 1) 5 " 5 -3 c3 CO J S *-* i 02 ct a .5 a) Q 03 _- ^ t- a 1 B o g Bo| 00^* t'" t> I^ t> O*O NN NCN -HN i |t| IH H I ! 1 ||l "8 1 11 -M '~!z *>O COt~ WO5 O i - a ! 4) fe SO X > S 03 * 1 ** * a | S * "3 ( o l-slif-a-t : : .s c : "a *O U ? tl N ; ; .2 s n*K 0) : : J e H Mil 3 o> & * o S aS-S3 I 8 H - o a . . o t, w ^- 73 ^ o w 08 4) 4) *" S . 2 -^ C3 -M ? O o ^ G.73 W E ^ -5 ^ Structure stall barn, before remodeling . . y arranged stall barn 5 remodeled for loose housing. . 5 remodeled as stall barn loose housing arrangement loose housing remodeled to bett tory, 10-stall barn loose housing arrangement, nev B Total travel does not include j such as from feeding and bedde b With a second chute (as sugge Feed alley too narrow for com A Three chutes were available bi Depending on whether one or ' This plan does not include a si 3"T^ *" . . ^ 73 88 .sws OPL, fnfe PL.CH OO o> 3 1953} ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 61 All of the estimates given here are limited to those types of con- struction commonly considered permanent. In practice, however, the farmer is not limited to any one level of construction. He may use farm-produced timber rather than depend on the lumberyard. He may prefer treated poles with frame construction to stud-wall framing and concrete foundation, or pole frame to masonry when constructing the roughage feeding or resting areas for the cows. He may sacrifice some permanence in order to lower his costs. The estimates in Table 23 relate specifically to the arrangements shown in Figs. 14 to 21. They are presented on a per-cow basis and are as economical as possible, granting reasonable permanence and the assumptions already stated. As these estimates include hired labor and purchased materials, the cash cost of any structure could be reduced to the extent unpaid family labor or farm materials were substituted. Costs of new construction (Figs. 20 and 21) may be compared with the estimated average costs of reconstructing existing dairy buildings presented on pages 8 to 11. Before comparing, it is necessary to add to these estimates the cost of facilities for young stock and the pro- portion of additional grain storage and water system that may properly be charged to the dairy enterprise. For the 10-cow stall barn the additional grain storage, based on consumption of 25 bushels of corn per cow, would cost about $200, if cost of the storage structure is $.80 per bushel. Normally about 70 Table 23. Estimated Costs of Constructing or Remodeling Selected Dairy Buildings at 1947 Prices (Including milking and milk-handling areas) Building M,,mV,or Approximate cost of .Number mate rials and labor* Description X. cows Total Per cow Good stall barn with silo 14 28 $11,710 $418 Remodeling 14 28 105 4 16 27 1,930 71 17 27 1,030 38 Remodeling loose housing 19 17 2,370 139 20 10 3,720 372 Suggested loose housing system with silo, b new construction 21 8,010 267 propor apprec b Includes upright silo, estimated cost $1,340. c If the herd is increased to 15 cows or more a silo might be included. d This allows 50 square feet per cow in the resting area, which with good arrangements and anagement is adequate for Illinois. 62 BULLETIN No. 570 [November, U- TANDEM 3 STALLS U- TANDEM 5 STALLS U -TANDEM 4 STALLS STJALLS OUT ABREAST 12' o WALK - THROUGH OPERATOR'S ALLEY 4' 6 IN - LINE TANDEM Types of milking stalls used with loose housing systems. A variation of the walk-through type may have 2 or more elevated stalls in tandem on each side of an operator alley. (Fig- 22) 1953} ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY BUILDINGS 63 percent of the dairy-animal units in the herd are producing cows, so that in a 10-cow herd there would be about 4 additional units of young stock. It is estimated that adequate housing for these animals could be built for no more than $50 per unit, making a total of $200, and the proportion of the investment in the water systems chargeable to a herd of this size would be about $100. Thus the total cost of build- ings to accommodate a herd of 14 dairy animal units using this stall barn system would be about $4,220 or $302 per dairy animal unit, equivalent to an over-all initial investment of about $422 per ma- ture cow. The 30-cow loose housing system (Fig. 21) includes space for about 11 units of young stock. A herd of this size would normally have 2 more units of young stock for which an additional $100 would be required. Other additional investments would be about $600 for grain storage and $300 for the water system. The total initial investment for the 43 animal units would then be about $9,470 or $220 per dairy animal unit. This would be equivalent to an over-all initial investment of about $316 per mature cow. These estimates of the initial investment required for a 10-cow stall barn and a 30-cow loose-housing dairy represent a higher cash outlay than most farmers would have to make. Many farmers could use farm timber and family labor or hired labor at lower rates than those estimated. The estimated initial investment per dairy-animal unit of $302 for the stall barn system and $220 for the loose housing system are sub- stantially lower than the average reproduction cost of the farm dairies found on farms included in this study. These were $350 in the Chicago area and $372 in the St. Louis, or from $500 to $552 per mature cow. SUMMARY A survey was made of 350 dairy farms in the Illinois portion of the Chicago and St. Louis dairy areas to examine the economic and functional characteristics of their dairy buildings. Investments chargeable to the dairy enterprise on these farms totaled 3.8 million dollars, slightly less than one-half of the amount being in dairy buildings. Cost of replacing these buildings at 1947 prices for labor and building materials would average more than $500 per cow; $300 to $400 would be invested in buildings for each $100 in dairy stock. 64 BULLETIN No. 570 There was little difference between unit building investments on farms with large herds and those with small. Few buildings were flexible enough to allow economical changes or expansion. Functional ratings revealed that low-cost buildings were as likely to provide good service as high-cost buildings. Well-planned buildings of a flexible nature were the most useful in whatever cost range they fell. Nearly half the variation in functional ratings of buildings was associated with size of herd, age, and structural level of buildings. In general, those operators producing Grade A milk maintained more efficient buildings than those producing lower grades. "bf^nailk. Annual dairy building costs Represented 8 percent of cash and 10 percent of total dairy costs. They^averaged $26 per dairy- animal unit, but varied widely, ranging from a low of $3.32 to nearly $80 per dairy-animal unit/. Although building costs amounted to only 10 percent rrf total dairy costs, the influence of buildings on labor efficiency, productivity of the herd, and quality of milk must also be considered. About $300 return per dairy-animal unit was needed to cover all costs, including buildings. There- was little difference in unit building costs" between farms with $200 return per dairy-animal unit and those with $500. Efficiency ratings of management could not be developed in this study, but the inventory that was made of management practices showed that improvement was most needed in sanitation and use of labor. Lack of equipment and facilities and poorly arranged buildings were largely responsible for high labor loads and inadequate results. Less than a third of the operators kept records which would enable them to feed according to production. Quality of concentrate rations, management of pastures, and breeding for higher production could also be improved. Although -. most of the farmers interviewed had stall barns, they were interested in loose housing. Loose housing would be more service- able, less expensive, and easier to adapt to changing needs than their present structures^ 5M 11-53 52953 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA