Part 1

Produced by Bryan Ness, Pat McCoy and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

TRANSCRIBER NOTES:

Words in bold in the original are bracketed in equal signs (=).

Words in italics in the original are bracketed by underscores (_).

The tables have been modified to fit by creating a key for the first column. The key precedes the tables.

Footnotes have been moved closer to the reference.

Additional notes can be found at the end of the text.

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

Agricultural Experiment Station

BULLETIN NO. 143

ECONOMY OF THE ROUND DAIRY BARN

BY WILBER J. FRASER

URBANA, ILLINOIS, FEBRUARY, 1910

SUMMARY OF BULLETIN NO. 143

1. Round barns would be more generally built if their advantages were known and if the few which have been erected had been rightly constructed. Page 1.

2. The round dairy barn offers greater convenience in storing, handling and distributing the feed. Page 5.

3. In the circular construction, much greater strength is secured with less lumber. Page 6.

4. The material for rectangular barns costs from 34 to 58 percent more than for round barns of the same area and capacity. Page 7.

5. Round and rectangular barns compared. Page 11.

6. Round and rectangular barns, including silos, compared. Page 13.

7. Detailed account, with illustrations showing how the round barn at the University was built. Page 17.

8. Itemized statement of cost of a 60-foot round barn. Page 29.

9. Brief descriptions with illustrations and plans of several round dairy barns in actual use. Page 31.

10. Conclusions. The advantages of the round dairy barn are convenience, strength and cheapness. Page 44.

ECONOMY OF THE ROUND DAIRY BARN

FULL SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILED COST AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW SIXTY-FOOT CIRCULAR DAIRY BARN AT THE UNIVERSITY. SAVING OF ROUND OVER RECTANGULAR BARNS. NOTES ON SEVERAL ROUND BARNS ON DAIRY FARMS.[A]

[A] Special acknowledgment is made to Mr. H. E. Crouch and Mr. R. E. Brand for their assistance in working out the detailed data which are the bases for the economic comparisons of the round and rectangular barns made in this bulletin.

BY W. J. FRASER, CHIEF IN DAIRY HUSBANDRY

The planning, construction, and arrangement of farm buildings do not usually receive the thought and study these subjects warrant. How many dairymen have compared a circular, 40-cow barn with the common rectangular building containing the same area? How many understand that the circular structure is much the stronger; that the rectangular form requires 22 percent more wall and foundation to enclose the same space; and that the cost of material is from 34 to 58 percent more for the rectangular building?

In a community in which everyone is engaged in the same occupation, one person is likely to copy from his neighbor without apparently giving a thought as to whether or not there is a better way.

In a district of Kane county, Illinois, a certain type of dairy barn is used by nearly everyone, while in the next county a distinctly different type prevails, and the dairy barns of another adjacent county differ from those of either of the former, simply because the early settlers of this particular locality came from an eastern state and started building the style of barn then common in Pennsylvania.

In a certain community in Ohio where a milk condensing factory is located, a large number of farmers have barns 36 × 60 feet, with an "L" the same size. The loft of the "L" is used for the storage of straw, and the cows run loose in the lower portion. These barns are all built on practically the same plan and are usually of the same size, and this is the only community known to the writer where this form of barn is used in this manner.

This tendency to imitate emphasizes the fact that men do not exercise sufficient originality. Because most barns are rectangular is no reason that this is the best and most economical form.

WHY MORE ROUND BARNS ARE NOT BUILT

In an early day when lumber was cheap, buildings were built of logs, or at least had heavy frames. Under these conditions, the rectangular barn was the one naturally used, and people have followed in the footsteps of their forefathers in continuing this form of barn. The result is that the economy and advantages of the round barn have apparently never been considered. This is because they are not obvious at first sight, and become fully apparent only after a detailed study of the construction. For these reasons, the rectangular form still continues to be built, altho it requires much more lumber. As the price of lumber has advanced so materially in recent years, the possible saving in this material is a large item, and well worth investigating.

The objections to round barns have usually been made by those who have only a superficial knowledge of the subject, and do not really understand the relative merits of the two forms. To the writer's knowledge, there has never been published a carefully figured out, detailed comparison of a properly constructed circular barn with the rectangular barn.

The difficulty with most round barns that have been built, thus far, is that they do not have a self-supporting roof, and consequently lose many of the advantages of a properly constructed round barn. This is the principal reason why round barns have not become more popular. A straight roof necessarily requires many supports in the barn below. These are both costly and inconvenient, and make the roof no stronger than a dome-shaped, self-supporting roof which nearly doubles the capacity of the mow. See Fig. (1).

Many who have thus disregarded capacity have also wasted lumber and made a needless amount of work by chopping or hewing out the sill and plate, thus requiring more labor and lumber, besides sacrificing the greater strength of a built-up sill. Rightly constructed round barns are, however, being built to a limited extent. One contractor has erected twenty-four round barns, with self-supporting roofs, in the last nine years. These barns vary in size from 40 feet in diameter with 18-foot posts to 102 feet in diameter with 30-foot posts.

Another reason for the scarcity of round barns is the difficulty in getting them built. Most carpenters hesitate to undertake the work because in the erection of a round barn the construction should be entirely different from that of the rectangular form. Many new problems present themselves, but when these are once understood, the round barn offers no more difficulties in construction than the rectangular form. It is, however, important to have a head carpenter who is accustomed to putting up round barns, as a man with ingenuity and experience can take advantage of many opportunities to save labor and material.

KIND OF BARN NEEDED

The first thing to consider in the erection of a barn is a convenient arrangement for the purpose for which it is to be used. At the University of Illinois, two years ago, a twenty-acre demonstration dairy farm was started, the sole object being to produce the largest amount of milk per acre at the least possible cost. To meet the requirements of a barn for this purpose, it became imperative to build one that was convenient for feeding and caring for the cows, economical of construction, and containing a large storage capacity in both silo and mow. These are the requirements of a barn for every practical dairyman.

A silo was needed that could be fed from the year round. With the small number of cows kept, a deep enough layer of silage could not be fed off each day to keep it good thru the summer, if the silo was more than 12 feet in diameter. As this small diameter was a necessity, it would require two silos 33 feet deep to supply enough silage. Two silos of such small diameter would not only be costly, but difficult to make stand, unless built of concrete. This difficulty was overcome by using the circular barn and placing in the center a silo which is 12 feet in diameter and 54 feet deep, thus making the one silo, with as much capacity as the two before mentioned, answer every purpose. This deep silo is an important part of the round barn, as it not only forms a support for the roof, but is protected by the barn, thus saving the cost of siding. Then, too, besides occupying the space least valuable for other purposes, it being centrally located, is in the most convenient place for feeding. The silage chute being open at the top forms a suction of air, which keeps the silage odor from the barn at milking time, and also assists in ventilation when the door to the chute is open.

ADVANTAGES OF THE ROUND BARN

The points of superiority that the round dairy barn shows over the rectangular form are convenience, strength, and cheapness.

ROUND BARN MOST CONVENIENT

Considering that the barn on a dairy farm is used twice every day in the year, and that for six months each year the cows occupy it almost continuously, and that during this time a large amount of the labor of the farm is done inside the barn, it is evident that the question of its convenience is a vital one. The amount of time and strength wasted in useless labor in poorly arranged buildings is appalling. People do not stop to consider the saving in a year or a lifetime by having the barn so conveniently arranged that there is a saving of only a few seconds on each task that has to be done two or three times every day.

The round barn has a special advantage in the work of distributing silage to the cows. The feeding commences at the chute where it is thrown down, and is continued around the circle, ending with the silage cart at the chute again, ready for the next feeding. The same thing is true in feeding hay and grain.

Still another great advantage is the large unobstructed hay mow. With the self-supporting roof, there are no timbers whatever obstructing the mow, which means no dragging of hay around posts or over girders. The hay carrier runs on a circular track around the mow, midway between the silo and the outside wall, and drops the hay at any desired point, thus in no case does the hay have to be moved but a few feet, which means a saving of much labor in the mowing.

To successfully embody all of the above discussed advantages in a dairy barn is one of the large problems in milk production. In a careful study of the barn question it soon became apparent that it was impossible to embody all of the requirements advantageously in anything but a circular form of building, and the 60-foot round barn, which is here described, was built.

CIRCULAR CONSTRUCTION THE STRONGEST

The circular construction is the strongest, because it takes advantage of the lineal, instead of the breaking strength of the lumber. Each row of boards running around the barn forms a hoop that holds the barn together. A barrel, properly hooped and headed, is almost indestructible, and much stronger than a box, altho the hoops are small. This strength is because the stress comes on the hoops in a lineal direction. Any piece of timber is many times stronger on a lineal pull than on a breaking stress. Take for example a No. 1 yellow pine 2 × 6, 16 feet long, with an actual cross section of 1-5/8 × 5-5/8 inches. If placed on edge and supported at the ends, as a joist, the limit of safety for a load evenly distributed is 642 pounds, while the limit of safety for a load in the lineal direction of the same piece of timber is 12,800 pounds, or twenty times as great.

All exposed surfaces of a round barn are circular, as both the sides and roof are arched, which is the strongest form of construction to resist wind pressure; besides, the wind, in striking it, glances off and can get no direct hold on the walls or roof, as it can on the flat sides or gable ends of a rectangular structure. If the lumber is properly placed in a round barn, much of it will perform two or more functions. Every row of siding boards running around the building serves also as a brace, and the same is true of the roof boards and the arched rafters. If the siding is put on vertically and the roof built dome-shaped, no scaffolding is required inside or out. These are points of economy in the round construction.

RECTANGULAR BARNS REQUIRE 34 TO 58 PERCENT MORE MATERIAL

In order to compare the amount and cost of material in round and rectangular barns, the following figures have been carefully worked out by an expert barn builder. Two comparisons, based on wood construction thruout, are made, in which round barns 60 feet and 90 feet in diameter are compared with both plank and mortise frame rectangular barns containing the same number of square feet of floor space, respectively. Since the most practical width of a rectangular dairy barn is 36 feet, its length will depend upon the number of square feet required in the barn.

Figures 6 to 9 are side and end views, showing the detail construction and size of the timbers of the plank frame and mortise frame barns here figured. The detailed figures of the lumber bills for each of these barns were carefully worked out, but are too voluminous for publication here. The total number of feet of each kind of lumber required is given in Tables 1A and 1B. Since the proportion of the different kinds of lumber and shingles varied for the different barns, to draw an exact comparison it was necessary to base it upon the money value, and for this purpose the total cost of lumber has been figured in each case. The lumber values used thruout are the best average prices that could be obtained. As the same prices are used for the material of all the barns, the comparisons of cost are correct, altho these exact prices will not hold for all localities and all times.

Since a silo cannot be economically built inside of a rectangular barn, the first comparison is made with the barns simply enclosed, altho one of the chief advantages of a round barn is the deep silo which it is possible to build so economically in the center.

Another item of economy in the circular barn is less framing lumber. This form has the strongest possible construction with the least lumber in the frame, and the least bracing, not a single timber larger than a 2 × 6 being required above the sill. The arched circular roof requires no supports, and no scaffolding is needed inside during its construction.

The accompanying tables show the comparative amount and value of lumber and cubical content in round barns 60 and 90 feet in diameter, and rectangular barns of equal area and height of posts.

TABLE 1A.--A COMPARISON OF THE COST OF MATERIAL IN ROUND AND RECTANGULAR BARNS OF THE SAME AREA, _Not Including_ Foundation And Silos.

A: Framing lumber, B: Sheathing, siding, and flooring, C: Shingles, D: Bolts, E: Total cost of lumber, F: Content, cubic feet,

==+=====================+=========================================== | | Rectangular barn, 36 × 78-1/2 ft. | Round barn, +---------------------+--------------------- | 60 feet in diameter | Plank frame | Mortise frame --+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------- A | 13,976 ft. @ $25 | 19,833 ft. @ $25 | 29,074 ft. @ $25 | = $349.40 | = $495.83 | = $726.85 B | 12,971 ft. @ $22 | 15,355 ft. @ $22 | 15,355 ft. @ $22 | = 285.36 | = 337.81 | = 337.81 C | 44,000 @ $3.75 | 45,000 @ $3.75 | 45,000 @ $3.75 | = 165.00 | = 168.75 | = 168.75 D | | 20.88 | --+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------- E | =$799.76=| =$1023.27=| =$1233.41= ==+=====================+=====================+===================== F | =117,669= | =117,138= | =117,138= ==+=====================+=====================+=====================

TABLE 1B.

A: Framing lumber, B: Sheathing, siding, and flooring, C: Shingles, D: Bolts, E: Total cost of lumber, F: Content, cubic feet,

==+=====================+=========================================== | | Rectangular barn, 36 × 176-3/4 ft. | Round barn, +---------------------+--------------------- | 90 feet in diameter | Plank frame | Mortise frame --+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------- A | 30,899 ft. @ $25 | 38,815 ft. @ $25 | 59,481 ft. @$25 | = $772.48 | = $970.38 | = $1487.03 B | 22,375 ft. @ $22 | 28,547 ft. @ $22 | 28,547 ft. @ $22 | = 492.25 | = 628.03 | = 628.03 C | 97,000 @ $3.75 | 102,000 @ $3.75 | 102,000 @ $3.75 | = 363.75 | = 382.50 | = 382.50 D | | 26.76 | --+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------- E | =$1628.48= | =$2007.67= | =$2497.56= ==+=====================+=====================+===================== F | =322,952= | =270,570= | =270,570= ==+=====================+=====================+=====================

ROUND AND RECTANGULAR BARNS COMPARED

In comparing the 60-foot round barn with a rectangular barn of the same area, the two barns should afford the cows the same amount of space on the platform. Allowing each cow in the 60-foot round barn 3 feet 6 inches in width at the rear of the platform, it will accommodate 40 cows and leave space for two passage ways. But in a rectangular barn, only 3 feet 4 inches of platform space need be allowed for each cow, and the 78-1/2 foot barn, with two 3-foot passage ways across it for convenience in feeding, will accommodate 42 cows. While the rectangular barn has stall room for two more cows, the round barn contains space in the center for a silo 18 feet in diameter.

The floor space and cubical content of the round barn 60 feet in diameter, and the rectangular barn compared with it in these tables, are practically the same, and the barns are therefore directly comparable. This being true, the percentages which were figured from the complete bills of material for these barns show the exact saving in lumber on the 60-foot round barn over the plank and mortise frame rectangular barns 36 × 78-1/2 feet. The lumber bills of the rectangular barns show an increase in cost of 28 percent for the plank frame and 54 percent for the mortise frame. The round barn, 60 feet in diameter, contains 188-1/2, and the rectangular barn 225 lineal feet of wall. The rectangular barn has, therefore, 22 percent more lineal feet of outside barn wall, requiring a proportional increase in both paint and foundation.

The 176-3/4-foot rectangular barn would hold 100 cows, allowing each cow 3 feet 4 inches in width and providing for 3 passage ways of 3 feet each across the barn.

The 90-foot round barn would hold 100 cows in two rows headed together, 65 of which would be in the outer circle, and have 3 feet 6 inches each in width at the gutter. This leaves sufficient room for feed alleys and walks, and two passage ways, one three feet and the other seven feet wide for the manure and feed carriers. All of this is outside of a central space for a silo 20 feet in diameter and 71 feet high, with a capacity for 620 tons of silage, and in the mow there would still be an excess, above the capacity of the rectangular barn, of 33,000 cubic feet, which would hold 66 tons of hay, or as much as the entire mow of a barn 32 × 36 feet with 20-foot posts.

TABLE 2A.--A COMPARISON OF THE COST OF MATERIAL IN ROUND AND RECTANGULAR BARNS, _Including_ FOUNDATION AND SILOS.

========================+=============+============================= | Round barn, | Rectangular barn, | 60 feet in | 36 × 78-1/2 ft. | diameter +-------------+--------------- | | Plank frame | Mortise frame ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- Lumber in barn, | $799.76 | $1023.27 | $1233.41 Material in foundation, | 86.89 | 105.90 | 105.90 Material in silo, | 159.01 | 295.26 | 295.26 ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- Total cost of material | | | in barn, | =$1045.66= | =$1424.43= | =$1634.57= ========================+=============+=============+=============== Actual money saved, | | =$378.77= | =$588.91= ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- Proportional cost, | =100%= | =136%= | =156%= ========================+=============+=============+===============

TABLE 2B.

========================+=============+============================= | Round barn, | Rectangular barn, | 90 feet in | 36 × 176-3/4 ft. | diameter +-------------+--------------- | | Plank frame | Mortise frame ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- Lumber in barn, | $1628.48 | $2007.67 | $2497.56 Material in foundation, | 130.35 | 196.80 | 196.80 Material in silo, | 265.00 | 513.52 | 513.52 ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- Total cost of material | | | in barn, | =$2023.83= | =$2717.99= | =$3207.88= ========================+=============+=============+=============== Actual money saved, | | =$694.16= | =$1184.05= ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- Proportional cost, | =100%= | =134%= | =158%= ========================+=============+=============+===============

The square feet of floor space in the round barn 90 feet in diameter and rectangular barn 36 × 176-3/4 feet are the same, but the cubical content of the former is more than that of the latter. The increase in the lumber bill is 23 percent in the plank frame and 53 percent in the mortise frame barn. The round barn 90 feet in diameter contains 283 and the rectangular barn 426 lineal feet of wall. The rectangular barn has, therefore, 50 percent more lineal feet of outside barn wall, requiring a proportional increase in both paint and foundation.