f DUPE°;, BULLETIN310D DECEMBER 1957 ąc U COSTS and PRACTICES Reportof a 1954-55 Study of Experiences ofFarmers in Four Alabama Counties ' czEO A G R ICUL TU RA L E EXPE R IM EN T STATION PO0LY TE CH NI C INSTITUTE cs/1e ALABAMA E. V. Smith, Director In cooperation with Auburn, Alabama FARM ECONOMICS RESEARCH AGRICULTURAL R ES EA RC H DIVISION SERVICE AGRICULTURE UNITED. STATES DEPARTMENT of CONTENTS Page PROCEDURE-----------------------------------------------4 DESCRIPTION of FARMs ----- -- ----------------------- 4 HARVESTING PRACTICES AND COSTS --Field Forage Harvesters, Upright Silos Field Forage Harvesters, Trench Silos_11 Bottlenecks and Harvesting Costs Comparison of Cost of Harvesting Corn and Grass Silage-9 6 11 12 A Framework for Planning------------------------------13 STORAGE PRACTICES AND COSTS ----------- _-------------------------------:16 Trench Silos------------------------------------Upright .Silos-------------------------------- ----- 17 18 --------------------------- FEEDING PRACTICES AND COSTS ----------- ------------------------------- 20 21 SUMMARY ---------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- APPENDIX---------------------------------------- 23 FIRST PRINTING 4M, DECEMBER 1957 COSTS and PRACTICES* Report of a 1954-55 Study of Experiences of Farmers in Four Alabama Counties WADE F. GREGORY, Agricultural Economist' MUCH DOES IT COST to make silage? That is a big question facing farmers who want to include silage in their feeding programs. And, it is a difficult one to answer because of wide variation in silage making practices, equipment, and storage facilities used, and different silage crops grown. Several other factors are important in determining if silage production is profitable on a given farm. Among these are (1) kind of livestock produced and level of production; (2) availability and cost of other feeds; (3) availability of men and machines needed to make silage; (4) whether to buy, hire, or trade for machines and labor; and (5) kind and size of silo to build. However, only cost of harvesting, storing, and feeding silage is considered in this report. A useful way of expressing silage costs is in terms of the cost per ton harvested. To harvest silage, men and machines are organized HOW *This report is based on results of research conducted cooperatively by the Agricultural Experiment Station of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute and the Farm Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. This research is supported cooperatively by FederalGrant and State research funds of the Agricultural Experiment Station and by research funds of the Farm Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. S*Farm Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Appreciation is expressed to the farmers who supplied data for the study on which this report is based and to members of the Agricultural Engineering and Agricultural Economics Departments who gave freely of their time and assistance. 4 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION into operating units. Forage is cut, loaded, hauled to the silo, and unloaded. In performing these operations, costs are incurred. Total costs will be high or low depending on several factors, one of which is how well the operation is organized. In addition to organization of the operating unit, yield per acre, field conditions, and kind and size of machines used also affect costs per ton of harvesting silage. Farmers have immediate control over two general factors that primarily determine costs per ton of making silage. These are the speed of harvesting or the tons of silage harvested per hour, and the kind and number. of machines and meri used or the hourly operating cost. Generally speaking, as more men and machines are used, more silage can be harvested per hour. However, hourly operating costs also increase, so: that the cost per ton may not always decrease as more tons are harvested per unit of time. The object is to have the number and kind of machines and men that will enable silage of good quality to be made at the lowest cost per ton. PROCEDURE To determine silage making costs, a cooperative project was conducted by the Agricultural Experiment Station of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute and the Farm Economics Research Division, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Silage operations on 71 farms in one of the Limestone Valley areas of Alabama were studied during 1954-55: Practices used to harvest, store, and feed silage were studied and costs were computed for each operation. Four counties - Calhoun, Talladega, St. Clair, and Shelby - were selected for study because they met the following criteria: (1) prevalence of farms on which silage was made; (2) a variety of ensiled crops, including corn and grass-legume mixtures; and (8) family size livestock farms. A complete enumeration of all farms making silage in these four counties from June 1954 through May 1955 was attempted. These farmers were contacted for data on their experiences in harvesting, storing, and feeding silage. SDESCRIPTION of FARMS Ninety-four per cent of the farms studied had dairy herds and 20 per cent had beef herds. Cotton was grown on 18 per cent of the farms with an average cotton acreage of 21 acres. SILAGE MAKING COSTS and PRACTICES 5 Corn was the most common silage crop grown and crimson clovergrass was second. (See Appendix Tables 1 through 6 for details on farm organizations.) Farms having upright silos were larger than those using trench silos in most respects. This was particularly true for such items as size of farm, cropland acres, and livestock numbers. Field forage harvesters were used on the larger farms. Most of the farmers made silage only once during the year. However, 15 per cent made silage both in spring and fall. A greater percentage of farmers using upright silos made silage twice during the year than did farmers using trench silos. One-fifth of the farmers had no previous experience in making silage, and more than half of them had less than 3 years' experience. Farmers using trench silos generally had less experience than had those using upright silos. Grass-legume silage was more popular with farmers who had added silage to their feed programs recently than with those who had made silage for several years. About 75 per cent of the farmers making grass silage had less than 3 years' experience. Field forage harvesters were the most common type of harvesting machine used. Binders were the next most common and a few farmers used mowers. Binders were used primarily by those who had been putting up silage for several years; whereas, 85 per cent of the farmers who made silage for the first or second time used field forage harvesters. Fifty-four per cent of the farmers using field forage harvesters owned their machines, 35 per cent hired the work done, and 11 per cent swapped work with their neighbors. A higher percentage of farmers owned the binders used, and only one farmer hired the use of a binder. Four answers accounted for more than half of the replies to the question, "Why did you start making silage?" These were (1) saw others doing it, (2) could obtain cheaper feed or milk, (3) needed more feed, and (4) drought of 1954 reduced forage growth. Farmers were also asked why they chose the particular day on which they made silage. Condition of the crop was the determining factor in a majority of the cases. Many replied that they cut forage early because of drought. Only five farmers reported that silage making conflicted with other work on the farm. Five farmers reported difficulty in getting 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION labor to make silage; four had difficulty in getting field forage harvesters when needed; and one found it difficult to rent a tractor when it was needed. Aside from these 10 farms, no difficulties were reported in getting the men and machines wanted at the time needed. HARVESTING PRACTICES and COSTS Harvesting costs were determined by multiplying the number of hours spent making silage by a cost per hour figure for the various machines and men used. The cost per hour for various machines is shown in Table 1. Hourly costs include the use of small, medium, or large tractors depending on the equipment used. Tractor size indicated in Table 1 was determined from the practices used by a majority of farmers in the study. If different sized tractors are used, hourly costs will change. TABLE 1. ESTIMATED AVERAGE COST PER HOUR OF OPERATING MACHINES MAKE SILAGE, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55' TO Operation Total cost orf kind of Tractor Hourly tractor cost size Fixed cost Dol. Fuel Do. 0.54 .32 .25 Total Dol. 1.08 .77 .64 Hourly cost for per hour for tractor equipment equipment Dol. 1.40' .38 .42 and equipment Dol. 2.48 1.15 1.06 Field forage harvester Binder Mower -- Cutter ------- Large Medium Small 0.54 .45 .39 Large .54 .54 .39 .54 .49 .35 .25 .54 1.03 .89 .64 1.08 .44 .35 .04 1.14 1.47 1.24 .68 2.22 Blower Large Wagon _ _ Small Buckrake .... Large Pack Medium .45 .26 .71 .71 Truck _ _.403 .50 .90 SFor more detail on costs and methods used in their calculation see Appendix Table 10. 2 Cost for field forage harvester with either grass or row crop attachment. If machine had both attachments, the hourly cost would be $1.66. $ Fuel and oil costs for truck. The average cost of harvesting silage for the 871 operations was $2.73 per ton. Sixty-two per cent of this cost was for machine use, 87 per cent for labor, and 1 per cent for extra packing and preservative. Harvesting costs were higher for silage put in upright silos Some farmers made silage more than one time during the year. SILAGE MAKING COSTS and PRACTICES 7 than for that placed in trench silos, Table 2. TABLE 2. Therefore, comments will be made separately for trench and upright silos. COMPARATIVE AVERAGE COSTS PER TON OF HARVESTING AND STORING SILAGE IN TRENCH AND UPRIGHT SILos, 87 OPERATIONS, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 Item Machine cost Labor cost - Trench Dol. Upright Dol. - All silos Dol. ---------..---.-.------- 1.51 .88 1.98 1.40 1.65 1.04 Extra packing ---------------- .01 03 .02 .04 3.44 .01 .03 2.73 Preservative ......--------. TOTAL ---------------------------------- 2.43 As the number of men and machines needed for the harvesting operation depends mainly on the kind of machine used to cut the forage, the data were grouped according to method of cutting. Field forage harvesters were used for 67 per cent of the operations, binders for 18 per cent, mowers for 13 per cent, and hand cutting (corn) for 2 per cent. For similar yields and field conditions, silage was harvested with the least average cost when field forage harvesters were used, Table TABLE 3. TYPE OF SILO AND BY METHOD OF CUTTING SILAGE, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 AVERAGE COSTS PER HOUR AND PER TON OF HARVESTING SILAGE BY 87 OPERATIONS, Type of silo and method of Average cost per hour Machine Labor Dol. 2.33 3.60 1.89 2.55 2.54 5.57 8.16 2.75 Average cost per ton Machine Labor Dol. 1.37 1.52 2.02 1.50 1.78 1.85 1.98 1.64 cutting silage Total' Dol. 7.04 8.37 7.07 7.28 7.59 10.64 7.93 7.47 Tota Dol. 2.12 2.78 2.82 2.48 2.70 2.94 3.44 2.73 Dol. Trench Silos Field forage harvester ---------------- 4.59 Binder ....---------------4.66 Mower -------------------- 4.99 All methods' ----------- 4.59 Upright Silos Field forage harvester --------------4.88 Binder --------------------- 5.03 All methods' ----------- 4.61 4.60 ALL OPERATIONS ------------- Dol. 0.70 1.19 .77 .88 0.90 1.57 1.40 1.04 xTotal costs include charges for extra packing and preservatives and, therefore, are more than the sum of machinery and labor costs. ' Two operations cut corn by hand and are included here. These two operations had an average machine cost of $2.76 per hour. ' Three operations used a mower to harvest silage and are included in these figures. They had an average machine cost of $2.80 per hour. 8 ALABAMA . AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 3. Machine costs made up 65 per cent of all costs for this group, but only 47 per cent of total costs for the binder-upright silo operations. The other extreme was the mower group, for which machine costs were 71 per cent of total costs. These differences in costs are also expressed in terms of hours of labor, machine time, and related factors, by type of silo and method of harvest in Table 4. The average number of workers varied from 3.9 for the group using mowers to 11.1 for the group using binders. Performance rates, as measured by the time required to harvest an acre and the tons harvested per hour, varied among harvesting methods. However, yields also varied, so that these differences cannot be attributed entirely to the method of harvesting. TABLE 4. AVERAGE ACREAGE, YIELD, AND PRODUCTION AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEN AND MACHINES USED TO HARVEST SILAGE BY DIFFERENT METHODS AND SOME ASSOCIATED FACTORS, 87 OPERATIONS, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 Trench silo Item Unit Field forage Binder Mower 11 20 8 17 Upright silos Field forage 18 80 Binder 5 25 All silos 87' 26 harvester Silage operations Average acreage harvested Average quantity harvester ------No. 40 Acres 28 harvested ___ ___ Tons Average yield per acre -----Tons Average no. of men __ No. Average man hours per ton------- _Hours Average tons per hour Tons Average operating hours per acre 2 - Hours 146 5.8 4.6 1.4 4.0 1.6 101 5.2 7.2 2.4 3.7 1.6 98 5.9 3.9 1.5 8.0 2.3 182 6.7 5.1 1.8 4.0 2.0 100 4.2 11.1 3.2 4.1 1.2 137 5.7 5.5 2.1 3.7 1.9 --------- Machines used Field forage harvester No. Blower ---------- o. N Binder- No. Cutter- ---No. Mower -No. Buckrake--No. Tractors.-------No. Wagons --------- No. Trucks -No. 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.7 1.5 .8 0 0 1 1 0 0 4.3 1.6 .5 0 0 0 0 1 1 2.9 .4 .4 1 1 0 0 0 0 2.2 .8 1.7 0 0 1 1 0 0 8.4 2.2 .2 2.8 1.1 .9 operations using trench silos cut corn by hand and three using upright silos cut forage with a mower. These are included in totals for all silos. ' Average operating hours per acre for men and machines in carrying out silage operations. 'Two SILAGE MAKING COSTS and PRACTICES 9 Field Forage Harvesters, Upright Silos Field forage harvesters were used for 18 operations.2 For these operations, harvesting costs ranged from $0.62 to $5.53 per ton, with an average cost of $2.70 per ton of silage harvested. The machine combination generally used consisted of a field forage harvester, a blower, 2 large tractors, and 2 trucks, Appendix Table 7. The size of crew varied from 4 to 7 men. Eleven operations used 5 men, 3 operations used 4 men, 3 used 6 men, and 1 used 7 men. Most of the fields harvested were reported to be fairly level and were located within 1,000 yards of the silo. The acreage harvested, however, varied from 12 to 100 acres. About two-thirds of the farmers reported 15 to 30 acres harvested. The difference in acreage harvested should not affect physical performance rates, however, for the time required to cut an acre should be independent of whether the total operation is carried on for several days or for 1 or 2 days. 3 Yields per acre varied from about 1 ton to more than 18 tons; however, a third of the yields were 4.5 to 5.5 tons per acre. In general, the higher the tonnage harvested per hour, the fewer hours required per acre. In other words, there was a pronounced inverse relationship between hours required to harvest an acre and tons harvested per hour. 4 There were wide variations in hours per acre and tons harvested per hour for similar yields, Figure 1-A. This indicates that even though the same numbers and kinds of machines were used to harvest comparable yields, the efficiency with which they were used varied. This difference in efficiency affects per ton costs of harvesting silage, as shown in Figure 1-B. With similar yields, costs per ton increase as more time is spent cutting an acre or as fewer tons are harvested per hour. For example, costs for harvesting 9-ton yields varied from about $0.94 to $1.98 per ton. Some farmers were better able than others to organize their work force into an efficient unit. This points up the necessity for each operator to calculate the best combination of men and maThirteen farms, 5 of which made silage twice during the year. Performance rates will probably vary if the operation continues for only a few hours, because the time required to get the combination of men and machines going makes up a larger percentage of the total time used. 4 The data have a gross correlation coefficient of - 3 0.55 (significant at 95 per cent probability level) which means that about 80 per cent of the variation in number of tons harvested per hour is accounted for by the time used to har'est an acre of forage. FIGURE 1. Relationship between tons of silage harvested per hour and time required to harvest an acre, 18 operations using field forage harvesters and storing in upright silos. SILAGE MAKING COSTS SILAE an and PRACTICES PRCTICS.. MKINGCOSS 11 chines for his operation and not to copy entirely that of his neighbors. It also illustrates the need for observation and imagination on the part of the operator to vary the work plan to reduce the time required for some jobs and to combine procedures to eliminate other jobs. These data indicate that on many farms there is the possibility of lowering the cost of harvesting silage by reorganization of the operation. Field Forage Harvesters, Trench Silos Field forage harvesters were used for 40 operations having trench silos. 5 The average cost per ton of harvesting silage was $2.12, with a range from $0.80 to $4.48. Machine combinations were more variable for farmers using trench than upright silos, Appendix Table 8. For both types of silos there was a similar relationship between hours to harvest an acre and tons harvested per hour. Likewise, a similar conclusion can be drawn concerning the possibility for lowering costs through reorganization of the work process. Bottlenecks and Harvesting Costs A bottleneck existed when all machines were not fully employed, that is, when some machines were idle. Cost comparisons were made for operations with and without bottlenecks for those operators who used field forage harvesters and stored in trench silos. Two groups were set up according to the cause of the bottleneckwhether in cutting or in hauling or unloading. These were compared with operations that had no bottleneck, Table 5. Very little difference was noted between operations with cutting bottlenecks and those with no bottlenecks. Yields were lower in operations where the harvester could not fill wagons fast enough than in either of the other groups. Therefore, in this group, fewer tons were harvested per hour and higher harvesting costs per ton resulted. Fewer resources men and machines were used in those operations that reported hauling and unloading bottlenecks. In these operations the field forage harvester had to wait in the field Thirty-four farms were in this category, 6 of which made silage twice during the year. 5 12 12^+^ ALABAMA ALABAMA r AGICLTRAL AGRI1i[uD EXPERIENT YPDIAMM STATtnN CYv~jvcI a TMII TABLE 5. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KIND OF BOTTLENECK AND EFFICIENCY FACTORS IN HARVESTING SILAGE WITH FIELD FORAGE HARVESTER AND STORING IN TRENCH SILOS, 89 OPERATIONS, 4 -COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 ' SOME Kind of bottleneck Item Unit Gutting 8 5.0 2.9 .8 1.0 1.1 2.2 2.0 1.2 3.8 4.8 Hauling or None unloading_______ 13 4.0 2.9 .7 1.5 .7 1.9 1.2 2.1 2.8 5.6 No. No. Average no. of tractorsNo. Large --------------- No. Medium ------------- No. Small --------------- No. Average no. of wagons --- No. Average no. of trucksNo. Silage operations -Average no. of men --Average operating hours 1 18 5.1 2.6 1.3 .7 .6 2.6 2.0 1.4 Average tons per hour ---Average yield per acre ---------- per acre -- ------------ Hr. Tons Tons 5.0 6.7 Average distance 1,274 1,052 to silo -------- ---------Yd. 1,535 Average proportion of time machines idle ---- Pct. 12 28 2 Average cost per ton ------ Dol. r 2.60 1.83 2.02 1Average operating hours per acre that all men and machines were used in carrying out silage operations. for empty wagons. This resulted in longer harvesting time per acre and fewer tons harvested per hour. Costs per ton were also higher for this group than for either of the other two groups. Comparison of Cost of Harvesting Corn and Grass Silage Up to this point, the effect of the kind of forage on costs has because of the difference in physical characteristics of corn and grass, operation costs were compared according to yield rather than the kind of forage harvested. If normal weather prevailed, a classification of farms on a yield-per-acre basis would be largely a classification on kind of forage because corn usually yields 10 to 20 tons per acre as compared with 5 to 10 tons from small grain or grass silage. However, yields of corn were considerably reduced by a severe drought in 1954. A comparison was made of the cost of harvesting corn and grass silage by pairing operations having similar yields. Six pairs of operations that had yields ranging from 2.4 to 5.2 tons per acre were studied. Performance rates, as measured by the time used to barnot been considered. owever, SILAGE SIAE-AIG MAKING COSTS OTSadPRCICSv and PRACTICES 13 vest an acre and tons harvested per hour, were about the same for corn and grass, even though fewer men and machines were used in the grass operations. A Framework for Planning The cost of making a ton of silage depends on the tonnage harvested per hour and the cost per hour for men and machines used. When making silage farmers attempt to keep operating costs low and tonnage produced high. However, these two objectives often conflict. Some basis for making a decision is needed. A general rule to guide farmers in making silage for the least cost for given conditions on any farm can be stated. However, it should first be pointed out that keen observation on the part of the operator is an important factor in making low-cost silage. If certain tasks can be eliminated or the time reduced for some operations without adding more men or machines, the cost per ton will decrease. The rule is to add men or machines, or both, as long as the percentage change in hourly costs is less than the percentage change in tons harvested per hour. The reverse is also true. Costs will decrease if by using fewer men or machines, the percentage reduction in costs is greater than the percentage reduction in tons harvested per hour. Farmers try to have each job in the silage harvesting operation performed most efficiently. This means that thought should be given to the order and the manner in which work is done. Often through simple reorganization of work procedures, the same job can be done either by fewer men and machines or by the same work force in less time. If this can be accomplished, costs per ton will decrease. Forage yields per acre greatly affect the amount of silage harvested in an hour. In comparing man-machine operations, comparisons should be made only for similar yields. To illustrate the rule, consider "Farmer Greenacres." He uses a field forage harvester pulled by a large tractor to cut the forage. Two wagons are used to haul silage from the field to a trench silo. While being filled, the wagons are pulled behind the harvester. A small tractor is used to shuttle wagons from field to silo. A medium sized tractor is at the trench to unload and pack. Unloading is a simple process, for the bottom of each wagon is covered with woven 9A I a AA ARAAAA APDUPIII11D1 A AB0A3A n a#%U 6K IU CDCDBAACT UII ArU G EVI IbI CTAT/A\B UnrN wire. The medium tractor hooks onto the wire and dumps the load of silage into the trench. In addition to the three tractor drivers, one other man is at the trench to help level the silage while it is being packed. Costs for these operations are $5.91 per hour, Table 6. TABLE 6. FARMER CREENACRES' HOURLY OPERATING COSTS SILAGE, BY OPERATION AND BY MACHINE FOR MAKING Cost per hour Operation Machine and operator Fe Fixed Fe oa Cutting Dol. 1 field forage harvester1.40 1 large tractor-----------.54 1 man------------------------ .50 Dol. 0.54 Dol. 2.98 Haul and unload Si 2 wagons--------------------.08 1 small tractor .39 man ------------------------------medium tractor--men----------------------- - .25 .50 .45 1.00 .26 1.22 1.71 1.05 5.91 Pack and unload S2 TOTAL COSTS PER HOUR--------------------4.86 Farmer Greenacres harvests 4 tons of silage per hour with this combination of men and machines. However, he observes that the field forage harvester has to wait occasionally for the returning wagons. Knowing that the cost of this waiting is $2.98 per hour, he wonders what would happen to the cost per ton of harvesting silage if an additional small tractor and wagon were added and the extra man at the trench was used as the driver. If average costs listed in Table 1 are used, hourly operating costs increase 11.5 per cent from $5.91 to $6.59, or $0.68 per hour. In order for costs per ton to decrease, the tonnage harvested per hour must increase more than 11.5 per cent, or from 4 to at least 4.5 tons per hour. If adding another tractor and wagon does not speed up the operation this much, then costs per ton are less with the original organization. If the tractor and wagon to be added would be idle unless used in the silage operation, fixed costs should not be included when costs are calculated. Rather, only the actual variable costs incurred should be included. Variable costs will probably differ from farm to farm. For illustration purposes, 25 per cent of the fixed costs in Table 1 are SILAGE MAKING COSTS and PRACTICES 15 charged as variable costs to take care of wear and tear. This amounts to $0.10 per hour for a small tractor plus $0.25 for fuel and $0.01 per hour for a wagon, or an increase of $0.86 per hour. Using this concept of costs rather than total costs, only 4.25 tons per hour need to be harvested for silage costs per ton to decrease, as adding $0.86 to costs increases hourly operating costs from $5.91 to $6.27, or 6 per cent. Farmer Greenacres should use only variable costs in deciding whether to add the tractor and wagon if these machines are standing idle. If, however, he must hire them at average rates, then he must use the actual rental rates paid. If with the use of an extra tractor and wagon, 4.33 tons of silage are harvested per hour, they should be added if available and not in use. However, if both fixed and variable costs must be paid for by the silage operation, Farmer Greenacres could afford to take a little longer to make silage and not use the additional tractor and wagon. 16 16 ALABAMA ALAAMA ARICUTRLEPIMNSAIO AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION STORAGE PRACTICES and COSTS Costs of constructing and maintaining a trench silo are generally much less than for an upright silo of comparable capacity. Total annual costs, including repairs, depreciation, interest on investment, and sealing silage, averaged about 27 cents per ton of silage for trench silos and about 78 cents per ton. of silage for upright silos, Table 7. TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF TRENCH AND UPRIGHT SILOS, 70 FARMS,' 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 Item Unit Farms having silos -------------------- Number Number of silos ---------------------- Number Farms having more than one silo- Number Average acreage harvested for silage -- Acres Average tonnage harvested --------------- Tons Average silo size-Tons Average storage capacity per farm --------- Tons Proportion of capacity utilized Per cent Average cost of constructing silos---------Dollars Average construction cost per ton of capacity ------------------- Dollars Average farm investment in silos---------Dollars Average annual silo charge -------------- Dollars Average annual costs. per ton capacity ---Dollars Average annual costs per ton harvested -- Dollars Average annual sealing costs per ton harvested--------------------------------------- Dollars Average annual total storage costs per ton harvested -------------Dollars Proportion of silage spoiled------------------ Per cent Average no. of men used in harvesting process --------------------------------- Trench Upright silos r LP'I silos 51 19 62 24 10 5 80 36 156 200 200 178 244 225 68 85 84.002 1,541.00 .51 97.00 18.79' .09 .14 .134 .27 5.7 5.1 66 18 13 3 82 19 49 8.69 1,916.00 116.00' .69 .78 .00 .78 2.5' 6.8 68 20 12 0 21 54 25 25 this Number Proportion of harvesting operation using Field forage harvester ----------------Binder --------------------------------------Mower --------------------------------------Cut by hand--------------------------------Kind of bottleneck None-----------------------------------------Cutting process ------------------------------Hauling Per Per Per Per cent cent cent cent Per cent Blower or cutter -----------------21 Proportion of time machines idle------------ Per cent farmer used both a trench and upright silo and is not included. 2 One silo costing $8,000, and 2 costing $1,250 each are excluded average. Includes and/or Per cent Per cent unloading--------------- Per cent from 4 lee farmers did not seal silos. If these farms are excluded, average sealing costs for farms on which this operation was performed become $0.17. SFive farmers fed silage as soon as it was put in the silo. Therefore, they had no spoilage and are excluded from the average. repairs, depreciation, and interest. SILAGE MAKING COSTS and PRACTICES 17 Trench Silos Trench silos varied in capacity from 50 tons to more than 500 tons and in construction costs from $4 to more than $1,200. The silo built for $4 was a field gully that was shaped to make the sides and bottom smooth. The $1,250 trench silos had the sides, floor, and one end surfaced with concrete. Some relationship between size and total cost was evident. This association is suggested by the following data: Construction cost per silo Under $50 $50-$100 Over $100 Average size in tons 125 195 319 Construction cost per ton of capacity $0.37 .57 .62 If the three highest cost silos are included, construction costs per ton of capacity for silos costing more than $100 become $1.85 per ton. The usual tendency for unit costs to decline as units become larger was not true for the trench silos studied. The smaller silos may have been located in sites already partially depressed, such as natural ravines or eroded gullies, whereas the larger trenches were on sites that needed to be more fully excavated. Annual costs include charges for depreciation, interest, and repairs. Repair costs, cleaning out the silo and reshaping the sides and bottom, averaged $6.33 per silo for the farms that reported repairs. Assuming that farmers repair trench silos in 2 years out of 5, as indicated by the fact that 42 per cent of the farmers repaired silos during the year covered by the study, the average annual cost of repairs is about $2.64 per year. Charges for depreciation and interest on investment averaged about $11.15 per silo. For trenches located in pasture fields, there may be an additional cost for fencing to keep cattle away from the silo. These annual costs can be considered as fixed costs and are not affected by the quantity of forage stored in the silo. The same costs are charged against the silo whether the capacity is partially or fully utilized. Therefore, the costs per ton of storing silage decrease as more silage is put in the silo. For example, if silos had been filled to capacity the average per ton storage costs would have been $0.09.6 On the average, silos were only 68 per cent filled, spreading annual costs over only 156 tons, which resulted in a per ton storage cost of $0.146. ' These costs are a simple average of per ton storage costs on individual farms. 18 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION To preserve silage, trench silos are usually covered or sealed. Eighty-four per cent of the farmers having trench silos used some kind of cover on their silos at a cost of $16.44 per silo, or $0.18 per ton of silage. Thirty-seven per cent of the farmers who sealed their silos used sawdust, 19 per cent used a combination of hay and sawdust, 19 per cent used tarpaper and sawdust, while 14 per cent used only dirt to cover the silage. Other materials used included crushed limestone, grass, pine straw and dirt, and a plastic cover. Preservation of the silage was the main purpose of sealing trench silos, but as only a few trench silos were not covered, a comparison of the difference in the amount of spoiled silage between sealed and unsealed silos was not feasible. However, some comments on spoilage follow. Farmers reported 5.2 per cent of the corn and sorghum silage spoiled and 6.4 per cent of the oats and clover silage spoiled. In an effort to reduce spoilage and improve the quality of silage, 18 per cent of the farms having trench silos used water when the forage was put into the silo. Corn and sorghum were the only crops on which water was used, and 26 per cent of the farmers who made corn or sorghum silage in 1954 used water. These percentages may be higher than usual, since much of the corn harvested for silage in 1954 was affected by the drought. For farms using water, spoilage was 3.9 per cent as compared with 5.5 per cent for farms not using water. However, the number of cases was too small to draw definite conclusions. Sodium metabisulphite was used on two farms in making grass-legume silage. Upright Silos Upright silos had an average capacity of 178 tons and varied in size from 62 to 254 tons. The average cost of constructing an upright silo was $1,541, or $8.69 per ton of capacity. Fifty-eight per cent of the upright silos were built after 1950, 21 per cent were built during the 1940's, and 21 per cent sometime before 1940. Thirty-two per cent of the farmers repaired their silos at an annual cost of $12.97 per silo serviced, or $4.04 for all upright silos. In all instances, the repairs consisted of painting the silo, which the farmers indicated they planned to do every 3 years. Annual charges for depreciation and interest averaged about $112 per upright silo. Thus, total annual costs, including repairs, were SILAGE MAKING COSTS and PRACTICES 19 TABLE 8. TWO COMPARISONS ILLUSTRATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TONNAGE STORED AND PER TON STORAGE COSTS Costs reported on different farms Item Unit Comparison I Farm 50 Farm 49 Comparison II Farm 56 Farm 67 Capacity Annual cost _ Cost per ton capacity Quantity stored __ Proportion of Tons Dollars Dollars Tons 221 181 .59 191 86 .69 225 141 .63 88341 1482 .42 169 128 .76 120 71 1.07 198 151 .76 262 1302 .58 capacity utilized Cost per ton stored 1 Silage was made 2 Silo was refilled - Per cent Dollars in the spring and in the fall. after silage was fed, which accounts for the figure being more than 100 per cent. $116 per silo for an average capacity of about 179 tons, or about 69 cents' per ton of capacity. Only 85 per cent of the available capacity was utilized, so that annual costs per ton of silage stored were 78 cents.7 This amount is the annual charge regardless of how many tons of silage are stored. Total storage costs are not affected much by the tonnage stored but costs per ton are directly related to the number of tons stored. This is illustrated by examples in Table 8. In the examples shown in Table 8, the storage cost per ton of capacity on Farm 49 was about the same as on Farm 50, and that on Farm 67 was comparable with that on Farm 56. However, as the silos were utilized more fully on Farms 49 and 67, these operators had lower storage costs per ton of silage stored. This does not mean that total storage costs were less on Farms 49 and 67, but rather that about twice as much silage was stored for the same cost. A difference in total farm costs may show up, however, if the operators of Farms 50 and 56 must provide storage space for other roughage, such as hay, to meet feed requirements. Only about a third of the upright silos had roofs No difference in the spoilage rate between silos having roofs and those without roofs was reported by farmers. Operators of five farms, or about 25 per cent, used preservatives. Two used sodium metabisulphite for grass-legume silage, two used water in packing corn silage, and one used molasses and water for oat silage. Some farmers began to feed silage as soon as it was harvested, thereby eliminating top spoilage - the most frequent place spoilage occurred in upThese costs are a simple average of per ton storage costs on individual farms. 20 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION right silos. Spoilage amounted to 2.5 per cent for those silos from which silage was not fed immediately. FEEDING PRACTICES and COSTS On the average, the cost of feeding silage represented 23 per cent of the total cost of harvesting, storing, and feeding silage. Feeding costs varied from an average of $1.23 per ton for silage fed from trench silos to an average of $0.96 per ton for upright silos. Variations in feeding costs from farm to farm were quite great for trench silos. Silage was fed on 10 per cent of the farms using trench silos at a cost of less than $0.50 per ton, while the high 10 per cent had costs of more than $2.00 per ton. There was less variation in feeding costs from upright silos. Almost 30 per cent of the farmers with upright silos fed silage at less than $0.50 per ton and the highest cost group, which made up less than 25 per cent of the farmers having upright silos, had costs from $1.50 to $1.65 per ton. The time spent in feeding a ton of silage varied from a half hour to more than 4 hours. The average feeding time per ton for all farms was 1.7 hours. The major factor that appeared to be associated with high labor cost per ton was the amount of silage fed per feeding. Most of the operations having high labor requirements per ton fed less than 1,000 pounds of silage per feeding. In general, farms on which small quantities of silage were fed had the highest feeding costs and vice versa. Most of the farmers fed silage only once a day, and morning was the more preferred time. On dairy farms, silage was fed at milking time in 83 per cent of the instances where upright silos were used, but only 10 per cent of the farmers using trench silos fed silage at milking time. Where trench silos were used, half of the farmers fed silage in a pasture field and the other half fed it at the barn lot. In many instances where silage was fed in pastures, trenches were located in the same field. Tractors and wagons were used to haul silage to the place of feeding on 70 per cent of the farms having trench silos, trucks were used on 18 per cent, tractors and scoops on 7 per cent, and feedcarts on 5 per cent. As silage from upright silos was fed at or near the silo, only 24 per cent of the farmers used tractors and wagons, while 40 per cent used feedcarts, 12 per cent carried the silage in baskets, 12 per cent used forks, 6 per cent used wheelbarrows, and 6 per cent used trucks. SILAGE MAKING COSTS and PRACTICES 21 Farmers reported that silage was fed as a partial substitute for other feeds, mainly hay. However, in some instances silage completely replaced other feeds in the ration. Sixty-five per cent indicated that milk production increased when silage was fed, with the reported increase ranging from "only a little" to "very much." In many instances the increase was attributed to greater total intake of feed, while some attributed it to silage being a milk stimulus as compared with a nonsilage ration. Seventy per cent of the farmers indicated that some hay and grain were fed along with silage. In addition, a third of the herds that received hay and grain had grazing other than permanent pasture at some time during the silage-feeding period. Almost a fourth of the herds received no hay when silage was fed; their ration consisted of concentrates and silage. However, half of this group also had grazing other than permanent pasture at some time during the silage feeding period. Only 6 per cent of the herds received no concentrates when fed silage. Half of this group received hay while the other half had only silage and access to permanent pasture. The number of days silage was fed varied. A fourth of the farmers fed less than 100 days and a fourth fed more than 200 days. The feeding period was longer for farms having upright silos. SUMMARY Silage is becoming more important as a source of feed on Alabama livestock farms. Corn is still the most prevalent silage crop, but grass-legume silage is an important second. For farms in the study, the average cost of harvesting, storing, and feeding a ton of silage was $3.93 for trench silos and $5.18 for upright silos. The average cost per ton of harvesting and putting silage in trenches varied from $2.12 when field forage harvesters were used to $2.82 when mowers were used. With binders, the cost was $2.73 per ton. Harvesting and storing silage in upright silos was slightly more expensive than in trench silos. Costs for upright silos averaged $2.70 for field forage harvesters and $2.94 for binders. On the average when field forage harvesters were used, fewer men and machines were used in harvesting than with other methods. An average of 4.6 men were used when silage was cut by field forage harvesters and placed in trenches, compared with an average of 5.1 22 22 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL ALABAMAB AhGRICUTRLEPRMN EXPERIMENT STATION TTO men when silage was stored in upright silos. When binders were used, the crew averaged 7 and 11 men for silage stored in trench and upright silos, respectively. Making silage is an expensive operation. Labor and machine costs averaged more than $7 per hour. However, machines were idle an average of 20 per cent of the time in the operations studied. Organization of men and machines in an operating unit determines to a large extent whether harvesting costs are high or low. For many farms, silage harvesting costs can be reduced by more efficient organization and use of men and machines. Harvesting costs made up more than 60 per cent of the total costs of harvesting, storing, and feeding silage for both trench and upright silos. Storage costs were 7 per cent of all costs for trenches, but 15 per cent for upright silos. Feeding costs, however, were 31 per cent for trench silos and only 19 per cent for upright silos. Initial construction costs for upright silos were much greater than for trench silos, but direct annual costs were greater for trenches. When both types of costs were combined, total storage costs per ton were $0.27 for trench silos and $0.78 for uprights. Spoilage, however, was 5.7 per cent for trenches and 2.5 per cent for upright silos. Feeding from upright silos cost less than from trench silos - $0.96 and $1.23 per ton, respectively. Silage was usually fed once a day, in the morning. On farms with upright silos, silage was usually fed at milking time. Ordinarily, upright silos were located near the barn, but trench silos were commonly located in pastures. Silage was reported fed mainly as a substitute for hay. Farmers stated that milk production increased when silage was fed and attributed the increase to greater feed intake. However, some farmers expressed the opinion that silage stimulated milk production. SILAGE MAKING COSTS and PRACTICES 23 APPENDIX Method of Determining Silo Capacity and Tonnage Harvested Silo capacity and tonnage harvested were calculated by determining cubic volume from dimensions reported by farmers and multiplying by the appropriate density per cubic foot. The densities used in this study were chosen because they were comparable to the results from several controlled silage experiments carried on at the Alabama Station.1 The densities used or sources from which they can be obtained are presented below: TRENCH SILO UPRIGHT SILO SETTLED SILAGE N OT SETTLED 2 Corn silage 40 lb. per cu. ft. All silage other than corn, 45 lb. per cu. ft. inDensities reported Table 4, U.S.D.A. Farmers Bulletin 1820 Corn figure times 1.25 inTorable 3, U.S.D.A. T Farme Bulletin 1820 Co rn figure times 1.25 nnage reported ,rs Although the densities used for upright silos increased with the depth of forage in the silo, a constant density was used for trench silos regardless of silage depth. However, most of the silage in trench silos was stored at depths of 5 to 8 feet. Therefore, densities probably did not vary significantly. 1 These experiments were not designed to measure density, but a rough estimate was calculated from the known tonnage and the cubic area filled. *Silage not settled are those instances in which farmers started feeding immediately or where the record was taken soon after silo filling time and the farmer did not know how much the silage had settled or was likely to settle. APPENDIX TABLE 1. LAND USE, CROPLAND, AND LIVESTOCK ORGANIZATION, ALABAMA, 1954-55 71 FARMS HARVESTING SILAGE, 4-COUNTY AREA, Trench Upright All silos Harvester Item All methods Harvester All methods All methods Pro. Pro. Pro. Pro. Pro. Average Average of Average of of of Average of Average farms Farms farms Farms farms Farms farms Farms farms Farms reAll rereAll rereAll rereAll rereAll report- port- farms port- port- farms port- port- farms port- port- farms port- port- farms 1 ing ing ing ing' ing ing ing' ing ing' ing Pct. 100 100 Acres Acres 327 206 327 206 Pct. 100 100 Acres Acres 292 182 292 182 Pct. Acres Acres 100 100 688 345 688 345 Pct. 100 100 Acres Acres Pct. 652 313 652 313 100 100 Acres Acres 394 218 394 218 Land use Acres in farm Cropland acres Cotton _ 26 21 5 15 89 2 29 15 3 9 1 1 No. 82 18 1.1 22 .8 24 69 94 24 100 65 14 85 4 6 Pct. 92 90 71 87 58 20 27 76 8 30 23 18 30 14 12 No. 33 21 1.6 86 1.6 5 19 72 2 30 15 2 11 0 0 100 0 100 8 81 62 .6 31 .7 8 Pct. 100 100 100 25 54 0 0 200 0 41 30 20 39 18 40 No. 101 69 3.5 7 3.6 0 0 200 0 41 2 6 24 6 3 No. 1 25 100 5 100 35 20 40 25 10 Pct. 30 34 188 20 36 28 20 39 17 21 No. 76 49 2.7 43 2.8 1.5 8 188 1 36 10 4 16 4 2 No. 76 49 2.6 11 1.6 18 56 96 18 100 56 15 37 10 7 Pct. 94 93 77 84 54 21 28 109 9 31 24 19 33 16 16 No. 46 29 2 87 1.9 4 16 104 2 31 14 83 12 2 1 No. 44 27 1.5 12 1.0 W 22 Corn, grain _71 97 92 Permanent pasture 7 29 Alfalfa .........-------------100 29 Silage crops 65 23 Corn 21 Sorghum -16 34 26 Crimson clover-grass_ Sudan grass 6 14 10 12 Other............. Livestock Dairy cows Heifers Herd sires Pct. No. 36 21 1.6 44 1.6 r e a No. 31 19 1.1 18 .8 m ----------_ 87 84 65 48 52 101 100 69 100 3.5 95 2 1.9 26 55 All beef animals, (animal units) Horses and mules t z Z 1 Trenches were on 51 farms, 31 of which used field forage harvesters. Upright silos were on 19 farms, 12 of which used field forage harvesters. One farm had both a trench and upright silo and used a field forage harvester. SILAGE SILAGE MAKING COSTS and PRACTICES MAKING COSTS and PRACTICES 25 25 APPENDIX TABLE 2. NUMBER AND PROPORTION OF FARMERS MAKING VARIoUS KINDS OF SILAGE, 71 FARMS, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 Kind of silage Corn and/or Trench Upright All silos No. 89 18 42 No. sorghum -------------------- 30 Spring grass-legume---------14 Summer grass Per cent 59 27 4 No. 91 Per cent Per cent 47 21 5 55 25 6 Grain-spring grass-legume-----------5 Spring grass0 --summer grass ---- ------------- 4 1 2 10 0 2 3 11 16 7 3 10 4 'One farmer made both corn and soybean silage. 2 One farmer who made sudan silage used both trench and upright silos. APPENDIX TABLE 3. NUMBER OF FARMERS WITH VARIOUS YEARS EXPERIENCE USING TRENCH OR UPRIGHT SILOS, 68 FARMS, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 Years of experience 0 1 2 3 4 5 Over 5 TOTAL Trench silos Upright No. 10 11 6 13 4 2 3 49 silos No. 2 3 4 1 2 1 6 19 All silos No. 12 14 10 14 6 3 9 68 PROPORTION OF FARMERS USING FIELD FORAGE HARVESTERS, APPENDIX TABLE 4. BINDERS, AND MOWERS To HARVEST SILAGE BY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, 68 FAM~S, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 Years experience Kind of machinefam Field forage harvester Binder 0 1 2 3 4 5 OverS Pct. 45 22 11 224 Pct. - Pct. 79 7 7 71 Pct.. 50 0 40 102 Pct. 50 36 7 72 Pct. 83 17 0 0 Pct. 0 100 0 0 All frm Pct. 63 18 12 7 Mower Other_------------ ------hand. 92 8 0 0 NoOF FARMS 2B 14 12 'Harvester and by hand. 10 14 6 3 9 68 'Hrese 3Harvester and binder. and mower, and binder and mower. 26 26 ALABAMA ALABAMA AGiRICUTRLXEIMTSAIO AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX TABLE 5. PROPORTION OF FARMERS WHO OWNED, HIRED, OR TRADED FOR MACHINES To HARVEST SILAGE, 71 FARMS, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 Kind of silo Field forage harvester Own Hire Trade Own Binder Hire Trade Own Mower Hire Trade Pct. Trench----------_____47 Upright---------____75 ALL SILOS-------____54 Pct. 47 0 35 Pct. 6 25 11 Pet. 70 40 60 Pct. 0 20 7 Pct. 30 40 33 Pct. 76 67 73 Pct. 12 0 9 Pct. 12 33 18 APPENDIX TABLE 6. PROPORTION OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF SILAGE HARVESTED BY VARIOUS METHODS, 87 OPERATIONS, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 Kind ooSF forage harvester rg rg de - Bindernhl Mower hand Pct. 6 0 0 0 0 3 Pct. Corn 68 Crimson clovergrass 56 Sorghum 67 Sudan 100 Other 100 ALL KINDS 66 Pct. 26 0 33 0 0 18 Pct. 0 44 0 0 0 13 Upright silos Field forage Binder Mower harvester Pct. Pet. Pet. 14 72 14 100 100 75 0 68 0 0 0 0 20 0, 0 25 100 12 HARVEST APPENDIX TABLE 7. NUMBER OF MACHNES AND MEN USED SILAGE ON FARMS USING UPRIGHT SILos AND FIELD FORAGE HARVESTERS, 18 OPERATIONS, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 To Number of machines Number of Field forage Blower Tractors Trucks operations harvester No. 1 1 Wagons No. 0 Number of men No. 4 No. 1 No. 2 8 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 2 No. 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 2.2 2 2 1 0 1.7 0 0 0 0 1 2 .3 4 6 5 5 5 7 5.1 AVERAGE 1 1 SILAGE MAKING COSTS and PRACTICES 27 APPENDIX NUMBER OF MACHINES AND MEN USED TO HARVEST TABLE 8. SILAGE ON FARMS USING TRENCH SILos AND FIELD FORAGE HARVESTER, 40 OPERATIONS, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 Number of machines Number of Field forage Tractors Wagons Trucks operations harvester 1 1 8 1 2 6 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 Number of men Range Average No. No. 3 3 4 6 4 6 6 4 2.7 4.8 5.5 4.4 6.6 3 7 No. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No. 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 11 2 No. 2 1 2 3 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 2 No. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 22 3-5 5-7 3.5-6 2.7-6 ------ 5 3 4.5 1 AVERAGE 1 1 1 23 2.7 2 1.5 0 .8 2.7-7 4.6 A bulldozer was also used. SA jeep was also used. SA team of horses was also used. 28 28 ALABAMA ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL GRICLUA EXPERIMENT XERMN STATION. TTO APPENDIX TABLE 9. NUMBER OF -MACHINES AND MEN USED To HARVEST SILAGE ON FARMs USING BINDERS, 16 OPERATIONS, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55 Number .of operations Upright silos 1 1 3 AVERAGE Number of machines Binders No. 1 1 1 ,,,, 1 Gutters No. Tractors No. 2 3 4 3.4 Wagons No. 3 2 2 2.2 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 0 1 1.5 Trucks No. 0 1 0 .2 Number of men No. 14 14.5 9 11.1 4.8 6 8 9 9 8 8.3 10 6 4 7.2 Trench silos 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AVERAGE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 5 5' 6' 6' 3 3 4.3 1 .5 1A buckrake was also used. APPENDIX TABLE 10. METHOD OF COMPUTING PER HOUR COSTS FOR MACHINES USED TO MAKE SILAGE, 4-COUNTY AREA, ALABAMA, 1954-55.1 Item Purchase price, dol. Field forage harvester 1,500 9.2 146.74 41.25 13.402 Tractor Binder Mower Large 284 20 12.78 7.81 14.44 237 10.5 20.31 6.52 30.06 --- BuckCutter Blower Wagon Trailer rake Small 1,740 10 156.60 47.85 63.30 33.04 84.56 33885.35 868 .39 260 15 15.60 7.15 16.46 - Medium 2,100 10 189.00 57.75 63.30 47.75 84.56 392.86 868 .45 Side delivery Truck rake 390 15 23.40 10.72 8.00 2,700 10 243.00 74.25 63.30 55.92 34.56 8 471.03 868 .54 500 15 80.00 13.75 3 150 17 7.94 4.12 1.14 105 17 5.56 2.89 1.45 660 15 39.60 18.15 13.30 Estimated life, yr. Annual depreciation, dol. Interest, dol. Repairs cost, dol. Tire cost, dol.Oil and grease, dol. Total fixed costs, dol. Annual use, hr. Fixed cost per hour, dol. --. 201.39 144 1.40 35.03 92 .38 56.89 134 .42 39.21 43.75 13.20 9.90 89 123 329 803 .44 .35 .04 .03 71.05 62 1.14 42.12 86 .49 -.50 1Several cost items are omitted because of inadequate data to determine costs. These items are taxes, housing, and daily service charges to grease and adjust machines, sharpen knives, and check over equipment. 2 Field forage harvesters varied in age from 1 to 3 years so that repair costs represent average repair charges for only the first 8 years of operation. 3No data on repairs for blowers were available.